That would be better, thanks. Fixed.

Thank you for checking, I appreciate it.

There's already a comment attached to MultiBit HD's BIP-39 cell which mentions Beta 8 being a requirement. (I'm the same Chris who opened that issue on GitHub )

Do you mean BIP-39 passphrase support? That's a good idea (It'd probably be a requirement for "full" compatibility, but not for "partial" compatibility).

Would it also make sense to add one line for each software/hardware combination, e.g. Electrum/TREZOR, MultiBit HD/TREZOR, myTrezor/TREZOR, etc., since they might offer different levels of support? Or are all TREZORs pretty much the same? (and all btchips, etc.)

Unfortunately I don't own any hardware wallets, so that makes it more difficult for me.

At least for Beta 7 the "Multiple Accounts" column is correct. I updated the sheet, and while I'm sure you're technically correct, I think it's slightly more confusing now, but I've no strong preference either way.

Some info about the Coinomi wallet.

btcchris: I'm happy to see this, something that kills me about multisig is that it leads to vendor lock-in at the moment. Being able to orchestrate a 2-of-2 between two different multisig web wallets is the direction I see it going.

Btw, maybe note if the wallet sorts public keys in multi-signature addresses as there's a BIP for that now to encourage wallets to be compatible with eachother.

I would guess that multisig web wallets are looking for ways to monetize their user base (integration or tie-ins with exchanges? non-free instant confirmations? advertising? time will tell...). It seems unlikely they'll remain "free" (as in no monetization) forever. If that guess is correct, a multisig web wallet would have no self-interest in permitting users to download the provider's private keys—that would allow users to move their wallets to a competitor. It also probably isn't a good idea from a security point of view, either.

For another take, consider GreenAddress 2-of-2 wallets. Their security model for instant confirmations outright prohibits them from sharing their private key, lest a user be able to double-spend a UTXO which GreenAddress has placed its instant-confirmed faith behind.

They already all (I certain hope?!) provide a recovery mechanism, so sharing keys between wallets isn't necessary for recovery purposes either.

In short: I don't think web-based multisig providers will ever share their keys (nor should the need to), and so I doubt they have much place on this spreadsheet. Could be wrong, though....

There are however non-web-based multisig wallets, like Armory, Electrum 2.x, mSIGNA, and Copay. These certainly do have a place here, but I don't think any are yet compatible with one another (I'm not sure about Copay though, I haven't checked them out yet). Since adding them would complicate the spreadsheet and not add much new value, I'm hesitant to expend the effort at the moment.... however I think it should be done one day. (BTW I'd be happy to be wrong about their current compatibility if someone could correct me.)


Agreed, BIP-67 is a good thing.

Excuse me for my mistake, it looks like it was indeed an error in the browser I was using, it works fine offline and on Chrome.

As for Electrum, I knew it was intentional... but never read the post you linked, thanks for that Keep it up with the spreasheet

Ditto.