Craig Raw [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2021-02-25 š Original message:+1 It would be greatly ...
š
Original date posted:2021-02-25
š Original message:+1
It would be greatly beneficial to have a referenceable standard for the
convention that everyone (afaik) is following anyway. I think the current
scope is now correct and agree with Fontaine's comments on the feedback.
Craig
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:17 PM dentondevelopment via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just wanted to give an update on progress for the "bip48" proposal.
>
> There was some discussion on Twitter between a few multi-sig wallet devs:
> https://twitter.com/fullynoded/status/1339374947228008448?s=21
>
> A few key points were brought up:
>
> 1. We should not define a `script_type` as a path level
>
> The explicit purpose of this BIP is to define an already existing standard
> that is used in practice across multi-sig wallets. In order to do that we
> must define a script_type in the path otherwise "loss of funds" could occur
> and backwards compatibility broken.
>
> 2. Another point brought up was that no-one uses the legacy derivation
> path m/48'/0'/0'/1', in practice all "legacy" p2sh multi-sig wallets use
> bip45.
>
> I agree and have removed all references to legacy p2sh derivations in the
> proposed bip.
>
> 3. We could possibly include a defined "wild card" in the script_type
> level to define any future address types (e.g. taproot)
>
> I agree this could be useful and think Ben Kaufman's suggestion of using
> m/48'/0'/0'/1' for this purpose makes sense, however I also think a future
> multi-sig standard for new address types may well be suited for a different
> BIP which could also address concern #1 around including `script_type` at
> all.
>
> Therefore I have not yet added any mention of "wild card" in the proposed
> bip but kept strictly to p2sh-p2wsh and p2wsh derivations as used in modern
> day wallets.
>
> I have create a PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1072 so that
> anyone may easily comment on it and any concerns can be raised.
>
> I think the community needs this and it is well over due. I have gotten
> positive feedback and support from other devs.
>
> Feedback welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Fontaine
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> āāāāāāā Original Message āāāāāāā
> On Friday, December 18, 2020 12:08 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for explaining where instructions are lacking.
> >
> > How does this look?
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1046/files
> >
> > On Friday 18 December 2020 01:44:27 dentondevelopment wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Luke,
> > > It looks to have the same motivations and be compatible with
> > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253 (if I am reading it
> correctly).
> > > The only guidance I have on proposing a bip is what is on the readme
> > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/README.mediawiki
> > > 48 would be fitting if it is unused.
> > > This is still very much a work in progress and there does seem to be
> > > community support.
> > > Pavol and others have shared relevant info/suggestions which I will be
> > > using to update the proposal.
> > > Will share again here when the next draft is ready.
> > > Many thanks,
> > > Fontaine
> > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > > āāāāāāā Original Message āāāāāāā
> > > On Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:16 AM, Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr.org
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > BIP number 48 has not been assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers.
> > > > Is this intended to be compatible with
> > > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253 ?
> > > > Luke
> > > > On Wednesday 16 December 2020 14:10:28 dentondevelopment via
> bitcoin-dev
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is the repo instead of a static link:
> > > > > https://github.com/Fonta1n3/bips/blob/master/bip-0048.mediawiki
> > > > > Fontaine
> > > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > > > > āāāāāāā Original Message āāāāāāā
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:43 PM, dentondevelopment via
> > > > > bitcoin-dev
> > > >
> > > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > I would like to propose bip48 (taking bip44 as inspiration),
> with the
> > > > > > purpose of documenting modern multi-sig derivations.
> > > > > > Please see a rough draft of the proposed bip attached,
> comments/input
> > > > > > welcome.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Fontaine
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210225/fb6326b2/attachment-0001.html>;
š Original message:+1
It would be greatly beneficial to have a referenceable standard for the
convention that everyone (afaik) is following anyway. I think the current
scope is now correct and agree with Fontaine's comments on the feedback.
Craig
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:17 PM dentondevelopment via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just wanted to give an update on progress for the "bip48" proposal.
>
> There was some discussion on Twitter between a few multi-sig wallet devs:
> https://twitter.com/fullynoded/status/1339374947228008448?s=21
>
> A few key points were brought up:
>
> 1. We should not define a `script_type` as a path level
>
> The explicit purpose of this BIP is to define an already existing standard
> that is used in practice across multi-sig wallets. In order to do that we
> must define a script_type in the path otherwise "loss of funds" could occur
> and backwards compatibility broken.
>
> 2. Another point brought up was that no-one uses the legacy derivation
> path m/48'/0'/0'/1', in practice all "legacy" p2sh multi-sig wallets use
> bip45.
>
> I agree and have removed all references to legacy p2sh derivations in the
> proposed bip.
>
> 3. We could possibly include a defined "wild card" in the script_type
> level to define any future address types (e.g. taproot)
>
> I agree this could be useful and think Ben Kaufman's suggestion of using
> m/48'/0'/0'/1' for this purpose makes sense, however I also think a future
> multi-sig standard for new address types may well be suited for a different
> BIP which could also address concern #1 around including `script_type` at
> all.
>
> Therefore I have not yet added any mention of "wild card" in the proposed
> bip but kept strictly to p2sh-p2wsh and p2wsh derivations as used in modern
> day wallets.
>
> I have create a PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1072 so that
> anyone may easily comment on it and any concerns can be raised.
>
> I think the community needs this and it is well over due. I have gotten
> positive feedback and support from other devs.
>
> Feedback welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Fontaine
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> āāāāāāā Original Message āāāāāāā
> On Friday, December 18, 2020 12:08 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for explaining where instructions are lacking.
> >
> > How does this look?
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1046/files
> >
> > On Friday 18 December 2020 01:44:27 dentondevelopment wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Luke,
> > > It looks to have the same motivations and be compatible with
> > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253 (if I am reading it
> correctly).
> > > The only guidance I have on proposing a bip is what is on the readme
> > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/README.mediawiki
> > > 48 would be fitting if it is unused.
> > > This is still very much a work in progress and there does seem to be
> > > community support.
> > > Pavol and others have shared relevant info/suggestions which I will be
> > > using to update the proposal.
> > > Will share again here when the next draft is ready.
> > > Many thanks,
> > > Fontaine
> > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > > āāāāāāā Original Message āāāāāāā
> > > On Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:16 AM, Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr.org
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > BIP number 48 has not been assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers.
> > > > Is this intended to be compatible with
> > > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253 ?
> > > > Luke
> > > > On Wednesday 16 December 2020 14:10:28 dentondevelopment via
> bitcoin-dev
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is the repo instead of a static link:
> > > > > https://github.com/Fonta1n3/bips/blob/master/bip-0048.mediawiki
> > > > > Fontaine
> > > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > > > > āāāāāāā Original Message āāāāāāā
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:43 PM, dentondevelopment via
> > > > > bitcoin-dev
> > > >
> > > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > I would like to propose bip48 (taking bip44 as inspiration),
> with the
> > > > > > purpose of documenting modern multi-sig derivations.
> > > > > > Please see a rough draft of the proposed bip attached,
> comments/input
> > > > > > welcome.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Fontaine
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210225/fb6326b2/attachment-0001.html>;