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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I (Robert Spigler) will respond in a next post.

Thanks for your comments!