* [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for a "PSBT for descriptors" format
@ 2023-11-23 22:25 SeedHammer Team
2023-11-30 23:12 ` Brandon Black
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: SeedHammer Team @ 2023-11-23 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
Hi,
At SeedHammer we're interested in standard, compact output descriptors to make
self-contained metal engraved backups feasible. To that end, we're proposing a
descriptor format based on the PSBT binary encoding. The format has not reached
widespread consensus, never mind adoption, so at this point we're soliciting
comments before formally proposing it as a BIP.
See [proposal], [implementation] and [playground] for details and examples.
The format is a binary and compact serialization specification for the
[wallet-policies] BIP. Features:
- Based on the binary [BIP174] PSBT format, including re-using the compact
PSBT_GLOBAL_XPUB encoding for extended keys.
- The descriptor itself is encoded in the same textual format as described
in BIPs 380-386 (+389).
- Key references (always) use the wallet-policies format @<key-index>.
- Miniscript is trivially supported, except inline keys are not allowed, and
pk(NAME) expressions are replaced with indexed (@<idx>) key references.
- Metadata such as labels and birthdate blocks are encoded as PSBT
map entries.
Known issues:
- CBOR vs PSBT. Blockchain Commons believes[0] that a CBOR based format is better
because it is a widely used binary encoding standard, whereas we believe the
complexity of CBOR doesn't justify its cost compared to the PSBT encoding
already widely supported by wallet software.
- The proposal specifies a separate header and magic; should the format instead be
an extension to the PSBT format?
Thanks,
E
[proposal] https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/issues/135
[implementation] https://github.com/seedhammer/bip-serialized-descriptors
[playground] https://go.dev/play/p/nouZlbbcEWt
[wallet-policies] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/bb98f8017a883262e03127ab718514abf4a5e5f9/bip-wallet-policies.mediawiki
[BIP174] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0174.mediawiki
[0] https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/issues/135#issuecomment-1789644032
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for a "PSBT for descriptors" format
2023-11-23 22:25 [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for a "PSBT for descriptors" format SeedHammer Team
@ 2023-11-30 23:12 ` Brandon Black
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Brandon Black @ 2023-11-30 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: SeedHammer Team, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Hi Seedhammer,
I think the goal of such a format should be that it is already a valid
PSBT, or can be trivially converted into one. Ideally, a coordinating
device can load the standardized descriptor file, add inputs (PSBTv2) or
unsigned TX (PSBTv1), and send it to compatible signing devices without
further modification.
Seems like the additions to BIP174 would be a PSBT_GLOBAL_DESCRIPTOR
with key of <birthblock>|<name> and value of the descriptor encoded as
proposed, and then PSBT_GLOBAL_KEY_NAME with key of <fingerprint>
and value of <name>.
Best,
--Brandon
On 2023-11-23 (Thu) at 22:25:43 +0000, SeedHammer Team via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At SeedHammer we're interested in standard, compact output descriptors to make
> self-contained metal engraved backups feasible. To that end, we're proposing a
> descriptor format based on the PSBT binary encoding. The format has not reached
> widespread consensus, never mind adoption, so at this point we're soliciting
> comments before formally proposing it as a BIP.
>
> See [proposal], [implementation] and [playground] for details and examples.
>
> The format is a binary and compact serialization specification for the
> [wallet-policies] BIP. Features:
>
> - Based on the binary [BIP174] PSBT format, including re-using the compact
> PSBT_GLOBAL_XPUB encoding for extended keys.
> - The descriptor itself is encoded in the same textual format as described
> in BIPs 380-386 (+389).
> - Key references (always) use the wallet-policies format @<key-index>.
> - Miniscript is trivially supported, except inline keys are not allowed, and
> pk(NAME) expressions are replaced with indexed (@<idx>) key references.
> - Metadata such as labels and birthdate blocks are encoded as PSBT
> map entries.
>
> Known issues:
>
> - CBOR vs PSBT. Blockchain Commons believes[0] that a CBOR based format is better
> because it is a widely used binary encoding standard, whereas we believe the
> complexity of CBOR doesn't justify its cost compared to the PSBT encoding
> already widely supported by wallet software.
> - The proposal specifies a separate header and magic; should the format instead be
> an extension to the PSBT format?
>
> Thanks,
> E
>
> [proposal] https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/issues/135
> [implementation] https://github.com/seedhammer/bip-serialized-descriptors
> [playground] https://go.dev/play/p/nouZlbbcEWt
> [wallet-policies] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/bb98f8017a883262e03127ab718514abf4a5e5f9/bip-wallet-policies.mediawiki
> [BIP174] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0174.mediawiki
>
> [0] https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/issues/135#issuecomment-1789644032
> _______________________________________________
> 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
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-11-30 23:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-11-23 22:25 [bitcoin-dev] A proposal for a "PSBT for descriptors" format SeedHammer Team
2023-11-30 23:12 ` Brandon Black
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox