Skip to content

Update multi-key.md #426

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 19, 2021
Merged

Update multi-key.md #426

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 19, 2021

Conversation

paulosacramento
Copy link
Contributor

@paulosacramento paulosacramento commented Jul 9, 2021

This seems to be a common misunderstanding among beginners. @sbddesign also considers it relevant, so this is why I'm proposing adding this statement.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding among beginners. @sbddesign also considers it relevant, so this is way I'm proposing adding this statement.
Copy link
Collaborator

@sbddesign sbddesign left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like your idea of adding this, but I think it should be worded in passive voice like the other content in the Guide. This is worded more in the active voice ("we would like...")

@GBKS GBKS added the Copy Task is about improving text. label Jul 12, 2021
@GBKS
Copy link
Contributor

GBKS commented Jul 12, 2021

While we're at it, we should review how we refer to public and private keys on this page altogether. I think I just spotted an error, as the page states that an application combines private keys into a multisig, while it's really the public keys. Could also be a new PR if you want to keep this one small.

@paulosacramento
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would open a new PR for this second correction @GBKS .

@ConorOkus
Copy link
Collaborator

Although technically correct when we say "signing a transaction" it doesn't always feel that intuitive to me. Can we include the purpose is to send/spend the funds? You did allude to it by saying "outgoing".

@danielnordh
Copy link
Contributor

Not sure a lot of people think they have to approve incoming transactions.
We could achieve the same clarifying effect just by adding outgoing.

"requiring three of the five co-signers to approve any outgoing transaction."

@paulosacramento
Copy link
Contributor Author

paulosacramento commented Jul 14, 2021

How would you guys rephrase @sbddesign version, @ConorOkus and @danielnordh ?

  • It is important to remember that the usage of multiple keys is necessary only for signing outgoing transactions, but not for receiving funds. This is a common misunderstanding.

@GBKS GBKS merged commit a7768b5 into BitcoinDesign:master Jul 19, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Copy Task is about improving text.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants