* Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP to align descriptors, xpub derivation and miniscript
2023-09-10 17:13 [bitcoin-dev] New BIP to align descriptors, xpub derivation and miniscript Dr Maxim Orlovsky
@ 2023-09-11 12:03 ` Antoine Poinsot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Antoine Poinsot @ 2023-09-11 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr Maxim Orlovsky; +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Maxim,
That does not sound compelling. Let's go through your points.
First you point how some wallets supporting descriptors keep vague BIP44 compatibility. There are multiple reasons for this, but first you say that the derivation path "commits to" (i think you mean describe? that's rather what you want for a backup) output types such as P2WSH or P2TR. It's incorrect. That's the whole point of descriptors. There are standardized paths for Taproot *keyspend* and weird multisig P2WSH templates. But you can't keep an infinite list of BIP44 templates for all the scripts it's possible to use under those output types.
As for the reasons for keeping BIP44 compatibility in some wallets:
- It makes sense for some output types to keep compatibility with non-descriptor wallets. For instance see how the Bitcoin Core wallet uses BIP86 for Taproot keyspend despite it being descriptor-based. [0]
- Some signing devices whitelist the paths you can extract an xpub from without user confirmation. (It's the case of Ledger and the reason we have to resort to using legacy BIP48-derived paths in Liana.)
You then go to point out how it's useless to use legacy standards within descriptors. Sure, but that doesn't call for one more unscalable legacy standard. Just don't use it if you can afford to? I'd even go for `m/network'/account'/<0;1>/*` (rather than your `m/89'/network'/account'/branch/<0;1>/*`) if Ledger would let us.
You third point is about how you can't reuse public keys across spending paths within a Miniscript. But it doesn't prevent you from reusing the same signer, you can simply:
- Derive a different hardened xpub from the signing device for each occurrence (cumbersome); or
- Query a single xpub from the device and then append an unhardened derivation step. To reduce the number of steps you can even reuse the multipath step. (`xpub/<0;1>/*` for the first appearance, then `xpub/<2;3>/*`, `xpub/<4;5>/*`, ...)
(Small correction passing by: you mention the Miniscript duplicate key check doesn't apply under Taproot context, but it absolutely does. I think you meant across Taproot branches, but keep in mind you can have multiple spending paths within a single leaf.)
Your final point is about how your client-side validation project introduces some "descriptor-level concepts" which are not handled by current standards. If your new standard is incompatible with descriptors, fix it instead of trying to convince all existing wallets to become aware of it?
Cheers,
Antoine
[0] The motivation section of BIP86 says it all. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0086.mediawiki#motivation
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, September 10th, 2023 at 7:13 PM, Dr Maxim Orlovsky via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Script output descriptors ("output descriptors", "wallet descriptors", or
> simply "descriptors") are getting more and more traction. Descriptors work
> in combination with miniscript, extended BIP32 keys (xpub/xprivs
> "descriptors" equipped with origin and derivation information) and are used
> to construct new primitives like "wallet templates" used in Ledger and
> BitBox today.
>
> Nevertheless, due to historical reasons, the resulting combination of the
> mentioned technologies is frequently redundant and leaves a lot of
> unspecified caveats, when it is unclear how descriptor with
> internally-conflicting data has to be handled by wallets and/or devices.
> For instance,
> - derivation path standards (following BIP44) commit to the type of the
> script pubkey (P2PKH, P2SH, P2WSH, P2WPKH, P2TR), but the same information
> is present in the descriptor itself;
> - each of the public keys within the descriptor replicates the derivation
> information and information about Bitcoin network (testnet or mainnet);
> - if the same signer participates in different miniscript branches, due
> to miniscript anti-malleability rules a new derivation path has to be used
> in pre-Taproot context (but not in Taproot) -= and multiple contradictory
> approaches exist on how to handle that;
> - client-side-validation approach, used by several projects, introduces new
> descriptor-level concepts, like taproot-ebmedded OP_RETURN commitments
> (so-called "tapret"), which are not handled by existing standards.
>
> As a result, descriptors contain a lot of redundant information, which makes
> them bulk, hard to read or type, and impossible to handle in the narrow UI
> of hardware wallets.
>
> At LNP/BP Standards Association we'd like to work/coordinate efforts on
> a new BIP proposal removing all the issues above. Before working on the
> BIP proposal text I would like to start by discussing an approach, seeking
> Concept (n)ACKs and Approach (n)ACKs from this mail list.
>
>
> The approach
> ------------
>
> Existing separate BIP44 standards, committing to a specific form of script
> pubkey are made redundant with the introduction of output descriptors. Thus,
> I think we need a new BIP44 purpose field which will be used with all
> descriptor formats. The standard must lexicographically require all keys
> to follow the same standard and use the same network and terminal derivation
> format. By "lexicographically require" I mean that there must be no
> syntactic option to do otherwise, i.e. the information must not repeat
> within the descriptor for each of the keys and has to be placed in the
> descriptor itself, using prefix (for the network) and suffix (for the
> terminal derivation format):
>
> ```
> wsh/test(or(
> and(1@[fe569a81//1']xpub1..., 2@[8871bad9//1h]xpub2..., 3@[beafcafe//1']xpub3...),
> and(older(1000), thresh(2, @1, @2, @3))
> ))/<0;1>/*
>
> ```
>
> Please note that each of the keys appears in the descriptor only once, and
> is aliased using the `i@` construction preceding the key origin. These
> aliases must be incremental starting from `1` (otherwise the descriptor is
> invalid). Each other time the same account xpub is used in some other
> condition only the alias should be used.
>
> For the mainnet the prefix must be omitted: `wsh(or...)/<0;1>/*`
>
>
> The descriptor is used to construct derivation for each of the keys
> in the same way:
>
> `m/89'/network'/account'/branch/<0;1>/*`
>
>
> where:
> - 89' is the purpose - an assumed number for the newly proposed BIP;
> - `network'` is either `0'` or `1'` and is taken from the descriptor prefix;
> - `account` is taken from the xpub origin in the descriptor (it follows the
> master fingerprint and `//` character) and the last `/<0;1>/*` must match
>
> the descriptor suffix.
> - `branch` part, which is a new segment compared to BIP44. This branch index
> must be always unhardened and is computed from the descriptor, starting
> with 0 for each key and incrementing each time the same key alias is found
> in the descriptor;
> - `<0;1>` may contain only 0, 1 index, unless a dedicated BIP extending
>
> the meaning of this segment is filed. One such case may be the use of
> a change index for storing an associated state in client-side-validation,
> like in RGB protocol, where indexes 9 and 10 are used to represent the
> assignation of an external state or the presence of a tapret commitment.
> It is important to require the standardization of new change indexes since
> without that wallets unaware of clinet-side-validation may spend the UTXO
> and burn the external state.
>
>
> Reference implementation
> ------------------------
>
> Once the approach is acknowledged by the mailing list the reference
> implementation will be written on Rust and deployed with MyCitadel wallet
> (https://mycitadel.io), which is the only wallet supporting since spring
> 2022 combination of all three: descriptors, miniscript and taproot (there
> are more descriptor/miniscript wallets which have appeared over the last
> year, but they are still lacking taproot support AFAIK).
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Maxim Orlovsky
> LNP/BP Standards Association
> https://www.lnp-bp.org/
>
> GitHub: @dr-orlovsky
> Nostr: npub13mhg7ksq9efna8ullmc5cufa53yuy06k73q4u7v425s8tgpdr5msk5mnym
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread