From: Vertoe Qhor <vertoe@qhor•net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request For Discussion / BIP number - Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In Multisignature Deterministic Wallets
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:11:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <552FB4E5.1010103@qhor.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5526DE29.1060605@maza.club>
I'm supporting this proposal and since I'm already using the Encompass
wallet software I would like to highlight that this use case is not only
practical but has already a working reference implementation.
The only donwside I see is that it means we get yet another HD wallet
definition.
Is there anything else what would speak against assigning a BIP number
to this proposal? This would allow kefkius and his team to use the
standard in Encompass and share it with other software packages which
might be interested in using deterministic cross-currency wallets.
On 04/09/2015 10:16 PM, Kefkius wrote:
> William,
>
> I've amended the proposal's "Motivation" section slightly for
> clarification. I'm not sure how a "cosigner_index" branch would benefit
> this proposal. Granted, I don't fully understand the benefits of the
> "cosigner_index" branch in BIP-0045. From what I understand, the
> "wallet" branch of my proposal seems to accomplish a similar goal.
>
> Jona,
>
> Your explanation is correct. As for this being appropriate as a BIP, I
> agree that it's an arguable point to say it improves Bitcoin. However,
> this proposal exists because of BIP-0044, which also describes a
> multi-currency hierarchy. For that reason, I think this is an
> appropriate proposal.
>
> Thank you both for your feedback.
>
> On 04/08/2015 12:41 PM, William Swanson wrote:
>> Oops, sorry I missed that.
>>
>> Since that's the reason this proposal exists, I would consider putting
>> it right up top where people can see it. Also, since this proposal is
>> specifically designed for multi-sig, I would look at what BIP45 is
>> doing and maybe incorporate a "cosigner_index" branch. Otherwise, this
>> idea seems like a reasonable way to organize a wallet.
>>
>> -William
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM, 木ノ下じょな <kinoshitajona@gmail•com> wrote:
>>> William,
>>>
>>> I believe the reasoning for this is stated in the Coin Type section.
>>>
>>> "Public derivation is used so that cosigners need only know one of each
>>> other's public keys, rather than needing to distribute public keys for each
>>> coin."
>>>
>>> BIP44 has a coin level, but it's a private derived level, so cosigners would
>>> not be able to generate multiple crypto currencies of each others' without
>>> giving each other n xpubs where n is the number of currencies shared. This
>>> new proposal basically sticks coin type on the public derivation side of
>>> things so that I could generate litecoin or darkcoin multisigs without your
>>> permission...
>>>
>>> Kefkius,
>>>
>>> This BIP seems like a good fit for multi-currency wallets based on multisig.
>>> So kudos for putting it in writing.
>>>
>>> However, I don't know if this is really a BIP thing. It's not improving
>>> Bitcoin (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal... remember?), in fact, by definition
>>> it is improving altcoin usability.
>>>
>>> For that reason alone I will say I disagree for a BIP for this.
>>> - Jona
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-04-08 16:46 GMT+09:00 William Swanson <swansontec@gmail•com>:
>>>> It's not really clear why this is better than BIP 44 as it already
>>>> stands. You have the same fields, but they are just in a different
>>>> order. Couldn't you just use the existing BIP 44 hierarchy, but add
>>>> the convention that "wallet/account N" is the same wallet in each
>>>> supported currency?
>>>>
>>>> For example, if I have a wallet called "business expenses", which
>>>> happens to be wallet m / 44' / 0' / 5', for Bitcoin, then the same
>>>> wallet would be m / 44' / 3' / 5' for Dogecoin, and m / 44' / 2' / 5'
>>>> for Litecoin.
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to think of examples where your proposal is better than
>>>> BIP 44, but I can't think of any. Even backup recovery works fine. I
>>>> assume that your idea is to continue iterating over the different
>>>> wallet indices as long as you are finding funds in *any* currency.
>>>> Well, you can still do that with BIP 44. The fields are in a different
>>>> order, but that doesn't affect the algorithm in any way.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you have some deeper insight I'm not seeing, but if so, you need
>>>> to clearly explain that in your motivation section. The current
>>>> explanation, "This limits the possible implementations of
>>>> multi-currency, multisignature wallets," is pretty vauge. Also, there
>>>> is nothing in this spec that addresses the multisignature use-case.
>>>> The BIP 45 spec does a lot of extra work to make multisignature work
>>>> smoothly.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to criticize your proposal. I'm just trying to
>>>> understand what it's trying to accomplish.
>>>>
>>>> -William Swanson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Kefkius <kefkius@maza•club> wrote:
>>>>> I have a potential BIP, "Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In
>>>>> Multisignature Deterministic Wallets." I'm requesting discussion on it,
>>>>> and possibly assignment of a BIP number.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's located in this github gist:
>>>>> https://gist.github.com/Kefkius/1aa02945e532f8739023
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
>> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
>> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
>> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
>> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-16 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-08 7:05 Kefkius
2015-04-08 7:46 ` William Swanson
2015-04-08 16:28 ` 木ノ下じょな
2015-04-08 16:41 ` William Swanson
2015-04-09 20:16 ` Kefkius
2015-04-09 22:24 ` William Swanson
2015-04-09 22:37 ` Alan Reiner
2015-04-10 2:02 ` William Swanson
2015-04-10 2:26 ` Alan Reiner
2015-04-16 13:11 ` Vertoe Qhor [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=552FB4E5.1010103@qhor.net \
--to=vertoe@qhor$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox