FLOT NSR Operations (buy side)

NSR provisional multisig address ready T63Z4xqKuYhWjharUQLYw2QxzQtkCXKtpc
Old provisional address. Update

1 Like

My motion has passed, seeing as the NBT group already seems settled in I’m assuming its best I join the NSR and BTC group?

My pub key: 02e2fcdfe246e9cd4864d9119b8af465487385eccd0ea30a8cb21d44d36818189f

1 Like

@Dhume should be in NSR group given that NBT group is already formed, so now there are 6 proponents for the NSR group. We are over the limit by 1 member.

As stated in their correspondent motions:

Rest of the members provide greater availability, so I think one of these tree members would have to be the less solicited for signing requests.
@mhps and @cryptog are not in NBT group, so they should be in the NSR one. That only leaves us @jooize.

What FLOT @cryptog, @Dhume, @dysconnect, @jooize, @masterOfDisaster, @mhps, @ttutdxh, @woodstockmerkle thinks?

I am very tired right now, so bear with me.

It appears the public key used for me in the NSR group is the same as for NBT, making it another address than the one I have control over. Never mind, it’s possible!

I see the value of using a seed now. Wish I had done it from the start.

Anyhow, the NSR group currently has one member too many, meaning I can leave the NSR group?

I don’t care who’s in the group (I’m looking forward to work with each of them), but I’d rather have somebody resign than removing someone.

Well, I’m a perfect candidate for leaving since I joined NSR because there were insufficient people available at the time.

1 Like

You can change your pubkey anytime with a proper reason. I expect we will ocassionally have to change individual pubkeys. Certainly, I will.

Múltiple reasons here: new cold storage solution, key compromised, starting to use HD keys, switching to the same seed for all networks like I do…

Edit: also if we use a seed for all of them (NBT, NSR, BTC and in a future PPC) we can create new addresses when needed without waiting for a new public key from each member. Even creating emergency addresses with the certainty of who will be authorized to sign them.


So, @jooize do you volunteer to leave NSR group?


Definitive FLOT NSR address T4cQwtThxdh8UWUy5XNPAwPfz73YuZAXqe: wrong @masterOfDisaster pubkey for NSR

Definitive FLOT NSR address SvtGbNjWE49pTM2TiUZrYKSNkxTJx75mmC

(Please check, double check again, and confirm)

My pubkey is shown as 02a144af74d018501f03d76ead130433335f969772792ec39ce389c8a234155259 on cointoolkit. (btw - cointoolkit is awesome!)
This is the pubkey of the NBT address I posted here.

The NSR pubkey I posted here in this thread is:
03d05d8fb69fcd289548140dde8e906f6fc217b02477f81842f2483d9ea1c92425 I thought that one would be used for the NSR multisig address :confused:

Fixed, I hope so.

I signed the above NSR address after I verified, no message however appears. Is this correct? Also can we do a test transaction after the multi sig is created?

What did you sign? I don’t follow.

I put 10 NSR into the address, lets make a test.

No it was my misunderstanding, thought we had to sign to create the address. Let’s do a test transaction!

Sent 2 NSR from FLOT SvtGbNjWE49pTM2TiUZrYKSNkxTJx75mmC to my address SdnvECf6HpfyXjAGuqwGkftWxxsaptBAKP.

FLOT @Dhume, @cryptog, @mhps, @masterOfDisaster lets see if we can all sign this transaction.
Transaction already signed by @ttutdxh.

1 Like

Apparently I could sign this tx with my private key corresponding to pubkey 03686ee42f635c71c08f326e66139b6cb37167402cc0562584655aac03fe740495 (NSR FLOT) using the Sign Transaction function of cointoolkit that gave me a green result: “Signed transaction
The above transaction has been signed:”

The output related tx information seemed appropriate and so I signed it with the private key of my address SXfkA6DgPm6jZZ2RDWAenkUvc1mvVCX42B.
Now it looks like this:

But I have some questions.
How can I verify the txid (40f962125e43ac8bddb15a85b0c5f8c2cdefd05cca43e804ebfbaa14a754c993) or the script of the input (00473044022043f8d141140fa8cf8618a3dbc537e65ebb8a176ba89f2e5d69292527a766e64202201db618fdf6637b33c502648fdef5e02903f731430a9ec50e214d86b363aaa53c014cad532102e2fcdfe246e9cd4864d9119b8af465487385eccd0ea30a8cb21d44d36818189f2103661a4370dfcfbcea25d1800057220f4572b6eecab95bb0670e8676a9e34451dc2103686ee42f635c71c08f326e66139b6cb37167402cc0562584655aac03fe74049521039854d0e2abf6e4971e1350137b876da6a05132737c11ca3e37aaed2a0eb668082103d05d8fb69fcd289548140dde8e906f6fc217b02477f81842f2483d9ea1c9242555ae) easily?
It seems to be different from the one for SvtGbNjWE49pTM2TiUZrYKSNkxTJx75mmC

I think i got it right


@masterOfDisaster Right now, you can’t unless you go low level.
That script changes everytime anyone signs, so that is why they are different.
Anyway it will not have any effect if it is wrong, it is not a security problem, the transaction will simply not work.

I have been thinking about a section to do that, and to combine signatures in this scenario:

Member 1 sign the transaction and results in 11a0fff…
Member 2 take 11a0fff… and sign it. He gets 22a0fff…
At the same time member 3 take the same tx signed by member 1, 11a0fff… and sign it himself. He gets 33a0ff…
Now member 2 and member 3 publish their correspondent transactions, 22a0fff, 33a0ff.

Now we have 3 diferent versions of that tx:

  • 11a0fff… With signature of member 1. (total 1 of 5)
  • 22a0fff… With signature of member 1 and 2. (total 2 of 5)
  • 33a0ff… With signature of member 1 and 3. (total 2 of 5)

We don’t have any transactions with the minimum 3 of 5, and we should since 3 of 5 members signed.

Only @Dhume, @cryptog left, the transaction from @mhps would already be valid, but lets sign it all to test.