From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD4DC0001 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:24:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5FA4EDB5 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:24:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtjZID8_JJNX for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:24:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-il1-f174.google.com (mail-il1-f174.google.com [209.85.166.174]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A14BD4EDB4 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-f174.google.com with SMTP id h18so4458715ils.2 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 02:24:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZfJH+cL8x7z83foWlpNS8zhDhtlY8G4G59fqLN6fLPw=; b=rupFzbkXare0p3A1BKW0S1UmKz+nDk6BgBkUPmn3hDJ7iByD6x9qHWjKcKJyoB6SXj PgLAsD+lP/Pjh8kboulUICXfh511ZiWzigOSECEOm1oxQwmqh4RCXaNq1wHO3hbY1ZPe UTtafGkM5gGUrlwJLv9TqvuZiLUyIm8mm6lOrwMrqgeipcKjaXLHBanVbad7xJlggieC LbB9sFJOaEX5wEfu+sgizRWA9w3eWoT/4JHxOy6REFdt7VRoLxaZvtGN0CPZurYJIECD 17EuW+igNrM0Z9aIqtrq7TXJaA2cbbaYfLk7rJ3CQ74l0DtQMWbQ7IZ2CJZ2/+37D/c9 xIwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZfJH+cL8x7z83foWlpNS8zhDhtlY8G4G59fqLN6fLPw=; b=eUjEiBC5tX16yg/cROL7RBfuAk3jNau2j8VJAB/ipQGezgWBJFIboWgfTTLLrPobHH HzbwmPjMvsh/eeMRg1esbHFORb6zD1YdxYf4PQsK3yeTNAmJvyF3uclNmSuS1OSMEkTp G3wYBRSH9nGgsFjS4iWr6XdH4JN+S03wdtwOU3fg9B18M+TyfGd0y3kTJ8BZ00/gAO2f 6klcUcBwnYi0Mv9YKB4d/rc6nnCzPDvhzyi7qJ/fi1jGN/qYeVZezcoIhdMYtsWb/4jj g+ZCqZIlBtedsw6t2xFfjVCEwM4KktyvEKbWDIQ43qpE7vjLlXVV2b3lqmZba97EOgtd n5dA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XOtx/0A8Uhbs0W/BxKTeueUxxOjgwfC7YWbiRqoKZxxIqV/83 jZpz/f0HxPJc0HI8YEl4ZkwiP7IDorcxQfCb6w0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJV0HxEZZGHklNCgiEWJ/rZfaEahkC/RutQgqZx5Je076mcokplvS41dVH0pJQzVptu0e57gir8HdjeFyW5sw= X-Received: by 2002:a92:cd8b:: with SMTP id r11mr1880842ilb.161.1614248650749; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 02:24:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202012161716.54878.luke@dashjr.org> <202012180408.31441.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: From: Craig Raw Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:23:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: dentondevelopment , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000683ea905bc268d21" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:43:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bip48 proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:24:13 -0000 --000000000000683ea905bc268d21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +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@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=3D21 > > 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 standar= d > 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 occ= ur > 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 futur= e > multi-sig standard for new address types may well be suited for a differe= nt > 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 mode= rn > 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. > > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original = Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 > On Friday, December 18, 2020 12:08 PM, Luke Dashjr > 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 b= e > > > using to update the proposal. > > > Will share again here when the next draft is ready. > > > Many thanks, > > > Fontaine > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Origi= nal Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 > > > On Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:16 AM, Luke Dashjr luke@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. > > > > > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 O= riginal Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2= =80=90 > > > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:43 PM, dentondevelopment via > > > > > bitcoin-dev > > > > > > > > bitcoin-dev@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000683ea905bc268d21 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1

It would be greatly beneficial t= o have a referenceable=C2=A0standard for the convention that everyone (afai= k) is following anyway. I think the current scope is now correct and agree = with=C2=A0Fontaine's comments on the feedback.

Craig

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:17 PM dentondevelopment via bitcoin-= dev <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hello all,

Just wanted to give an update on progress for the "bip48" proposa= l.

There was some discussion on Twitter between a few multi-sig wallet devs: <= a href=3D"https://twitter.com/fullynoded/status/1339374947228008448?s=3D21"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://twitter.com/fullynoded/status= /1339374947228008448?s=3D21

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 m= ust define a script_type in the path otherwise "loss of funds" co= uld 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 mu= lti-sig wallets use bip45.

I agree and have removed all references to legacy p2sh derivations in the p= roposed 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 usin= g m/48'/0'/0'/1' for this purpose makes sense, however I al= so think a future multi-sig standard for new address types may well be suit= ed 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/107= 2 so that anyone may easily comment on it and any concerns can be raise= d.

I think the community needs this and it is well over due.=C2=A0 I have gott= en positive feedback and support from other devs.

Feedback welcome.

Cheers,
Fontaine


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Friday, December 18, 2020 12:08 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> Thanks for explaining where instructions are lacking.
>
> How does this look?
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1046/files<= /a>
>
> 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 rea= dme
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bip= s/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 wi= ll be
> > using to update the proposal.
> > Will share again here when the next draft is ready.
> > Many thanks,
> > Fontaine
> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 O= riginal Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2= =80=90
> > On Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:16 AM, Luke Dashjr luke@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.co= m/Fonta1n3/bips/blob/master/bip-0048.mediawiki
> > > > Fontaine
> > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> > > > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90= =E2=80=90 Original Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2= =80=90=E2=80=90
> > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:43 PM, dentondevelopm= ent via
> > > > bitcoin-dev
> > >
> > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I would like to propose bip48 (taking bip44 as ins= piration), with the
> > > > > purpose of documenting modern multi-sig derivation= s.
> > > > > Please see a rough draft of the proposed bip attac= hed, comments/input
> > > > > welcome.
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Fontaine


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000683ea905bc268d21--