-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 106
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
Update multi-key.md #426
Conversation
This seems to be a common misunderstanding among beginners. @sbddesign also considers it relevant, so this is way I'm proposing adding this statement.
There was a problem hiding this 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...")
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. |
I would open a new PR for this second correction @GBKS . |
Co-authored-by: Stephen DeLorme <[email protected]>
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". |
Not sure a lot of people think they have to approve incoming transactions. "requiring three of the five co-signers to approve any outgoing transaction." |
How would you guys rephrase @sbddesign version, @ConorOkus and @danielnordh ?
|
This seems to be a common misunderstanding among beginners. @sbddesign also considers it relevant, so this is why I'm proposing adding this statement.