From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WNZ1U-000055-7z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 02:36:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.180; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WNZ1T-00035U-4P for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 02:36:00 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x3so10608196qcv.39 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.107.10 with SMTP id g10mr46735076qgf.63.1394591753692; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [76.111.96.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u1sm73949573qac.1.2014.03.11.19.35.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <531FC808.7060709@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:35:52 -0400 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <531DFDF8.80008@gmail.com> <531E52FE.5090107@jerviss.org> <531E5454.1030601@gmail.com> <4fca6b510dd57d2f92affeb988d2ee5d.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net> <531FAA55.2020108@xeno-genesis.com> In-Reply-To: <531FAA55.2020108@xeno-genesis.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040503000302020300020300" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WNZ1T-00035U-4P Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multisign payment protocol? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 02:36:00 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040503000302020300020300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I might as well throw in a word about Armory. After our next release in a couple weeks, we will be going full-speed at new wallets and BIP32 integration. Just like Jean-Pierre mentioned, we'll be using parallel trees to generate P2SH addresses after sorting the keys lexicographically. We plan to introduce the concept of a wallet "bundle" (that name is far from concrete... I'd love a better word). All wallets in a bundle are protected by the same backup, and stored in the same file. The default behavior will be use new branches in the same BIP32 tree when a user creates a new "wallet", though we will allow multiple bundles in advanced and expert usermode (which is needed to have watching-only wallets from a different seed created from an offline computer). However, we do plan to allow separate parties to create multisig-intended wallets with public parts that can be exported and combined with other users. We feel this is critical, as it allows for linked wallets in which there was never a single-point of failure from key-generation to signing. This is especially important for contexts where employees may be handling a company's Bitcoins wallets. On this topic, I have gotten a lot of inquiries into BIP 38 and 39. I was not clear whether those BIPs were worth prioritizing ... i.e. is there a general consensus from a variety of wallet developers that they should be supported? Rather, I'm happy to start prioritizing them if others do too, but I haven't spent much time trying to understand them to even know if they're mature, yet. -Alan On 03/11/2014 08:29 PM, Jean-Pierre Rupp wrote: > Hello people, > > We are working on some of this stuff. We had some very early draft on > how we envisioned multisig happening. It is all implemented in Haskoin > available as multiple repositories in Github. I am happy to see this > gathering momentum. > > Our multisig system uses BIP-0032 HD wallets, and there will soon be > BIP-0039 support for keys compatibility. > > Our wallet uses synced trees rooted at the extended pubkeys of the > participants. Currently we are sorting public keys in the scripts to > avoid ambiguity. > > Download haskoin-wallet: > > cabal install haskoin-wallet > > Check out the hw command (installed in ~/.cabal/bin/hw). Use importtx to > bring transactions into the wallet. You must initialize first with a > seed and create an account. It supports both regular and multisig accounts. > > Perhaps this can lead to interesting discussions on key exchange, and > the appropriate handling of wallet metadata. I?d love to work on a > proper standard that could lead us to compatible implementations. > > This document explains how we do it now: > > http://haskoin.com/~xeno/hd-multisig-wallet.html > > Cheers! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their > applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, > this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --------------040503000302020300020300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I might as well throw in a word about Armory.  After our next release in a couple weeks, we will be going full-speed at new wallets and BIP32 integration.  Just like Jean-Pierre mentioned, we'll be using parallel trees to generate P2SH addresses after sorting the keys lexicographically.  We plan to introduce the concept of a wallet "bundle" (that name is far from concrete... I'd love a better word).  All wallets in a bundle are protected by the same backup, and stored in the same file.  The default behavior will be use new branches in the same BIP32 tree when a user creates a new "wallet", though we will allow multiple bundles in advanced and expert usermode (which is needed to have watching-only wallets from a different seed created from an offline computer).

However, we do plan to allow separate parties to create multisig-intended wallets with public parts that can be exported and combined with other users.  We feel this is critical, as it allows for linked wallets in which there was never a single-point of failure from key-generation to signing.  This is especially important for contexts where employees may be handling a company's Bitcoins wallets.

On this topic, I have gotten a lot of inquiries into BIP 38 and 39.  I was not clear whether those BIPs were worth prioritizing ... i.e. is there a general consensus from a variety of wallet developers that they should be supported?  Rather, I'm happy to start prioritizing them if others do too, but I haven't spent much time trying to understand them to even know if they're mature, yet.

-Alan


On 03/11/2014 08:29 PM, Jean-Pierre Rupp wrote:
Hello people,

We are working on some of this stuff. We had some very early draft on
how we envisioned multisig happening. It is all implemented in Haskoin
available as multiple repositories in Github. I am happy to see this
gathering momentum.

Our multisig system uses BIP-0032 HD wallets, and there will soon be
BIP-0039 support for keys compatibility.

Our wallet uses synced trees rooted at the extended pubkeys of the
participants. Currently we are sorting public keys in the scripts to
avoid ambiguity.

Download haskoin-wallet:

cabal install haskoin-wallet

Check out the hw command (installed in ~/.cabal/bin/hw). Use importtx to
bring transactions into the wallet. You must initialize first with a
seed and create an account. It supports both regular and multisig accounts.

Perhaps this can lead to interesting discussions on key exchange, and
the appropriate handling of wallet metadata. I’d love to work on a
proper standard that could lead us to compatible implementations.

This document explains how we do it now:

http://haskoin.com/~xeno/hd-multisig-wallet.html

Cheers!




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech


_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--------------040503000302020300020300--