Craig Raw [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-19 📝 Original message:Hi Robert, I believe many ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-03-19
📝 Original message:Hi Robert,

I believe many of the same concerns apply in multisig. If one has the
threshold and all the cosigner seeds, the funds in a multisig wallet can
very likely be discovered by checking one of a handful of standard
derivation paths/script types. Is the motivation of this BIP proposal
strong enough to lose this capability?

Craig

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:43 PM Robert Spigler <RobertSpigler at protonmail.ch>
wrote:

> (IMO), where this proposal really excels, is mutlisig. And if you check
> my commits, it actually originally was for multisig only, and I extended it
> for multisig and single sig wallets.
>
> ghost43 and Jochen Hoenicke brought up important issues with this proposed
> BIP re: single sig wallets, so I will be reverting this back for multisig
> derivations. I believe that should cover all concerns.
>
> Please view the updated BIP here:
> https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/blob/Sane_Mulitisg_deriv/Modern%20Hierarchy%20for%20Deterministic%20Multisignature%20Wallets.mediawiki
>
> And the updated PR here: https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/pull/1
>
> Thank you,
>
> Robert
>
> Personal Fingerprint: BF0D 3C08 A439 5AC6 11C1 5395 B70B 4A77 F850 548F
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:44 PM, Robert Spigler via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> I (Robert Spigler) will respond in a next post.
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210319/dab0f192/attachment.html>;