📅 Original date posted:2015-04-08
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
William Swanson [ARCHIVE] /
npub159…jtxgs
2023-06-07 15:32:20
in reply to nevent1q…fdwj
Author Public Key
npub159u2fkxuq00hvmtypwllna99xh0vk9k9jkk5w89taev70au0gwwsmjtxgsPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:20Event JSON
{
"id": "c21b428020ca4223fde47bac62d582daee52f44d2b2da5bf34dcba3eeb4eb77e",
"pubkey": "a178a4d8dc03df766d640bbff9f4a535decb16c595ad471cabee59e7f78f439d",
"created_at": 1686151940,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a3eafd4a0eb465d4acd06fbd4c0710e302efa659d70aadc00e533ecbab060a60",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9ec2c4704a33aba13563375d793bd6104420a1d79a2108eb952810289c62a9f3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"515d3994e186b3ad9a33cd2147d179924f66b958e63874d4ecad22fed0a5c23b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-04-08\n📝 Original message:It's not really clear why this is better than BIP 44 as it already\nstands. You have the same fields, but they are just in a different\norder. Couldn't you just use the existing BIP 44 hierarchy, but add\nthe convention that \"wallet/account N\" is the same wallet in each\nsupported currency?\n\nFor example, if I have a wallet called \"business expenses\", which\nhappens to be wallet m / 44' / 0' / 5', for Bitcoin, then the same\nwallet would be m / 44' / 3' / 5' for Dogecoin, and m / 44' / 2' / 5'\nfor Litecoin.\n\nI am trying to think of examples where your proposal is better than\nBIP 44, but I can't think of any. Even backup recovery works fine. I\nassume that your idea is to continue iterating over the different\nwallet indices as long as you are finding funds in *any* currency.\nWell, you can still do that with BIP 44. The fields are in a different\norder, but that doesn't affect the algorithm in any way.\n\nMaybe you have some deeper insight I'm not seeing, but if so, you need\nto clearly explain that in your motivation section. The current\nexplanation, \"This limits the possible implementations of\nmulti-currency, multisignature wallets,\" is pretty vauge. Also, there\nis nothing in this spec that addresses the multisignature use-case.\nThe BIP 45 spec does a lot of extra work to make multisignature work\nsmoothly.\n\nI'm not trying to criticize your proposal. I'm just trying to\nunderstand what it's trying to accomplish.\n\n-William Swanson\n\n\nOn Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Kefkius \u003ckefkius at maza.club\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I have a potential BIP, \"Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In\n\u003e Multisignature Deterministic Wallets.\" I'm requesting discussion on it,\n\u003e and possibly assignment of a BIP number.\n\u003e\n\u003e It's located in this github gist:\n\u003e https://gist.github.com/Kefkius/1aa02945e532f8739023\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT\n\u003e Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard\n\u003e Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises\n\u003e http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_\n\u003e source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15\u0026utm_medium=email\u0026utm_campaign=VA_SF\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development",
"sig": "f4476a70d944d006bf53d8ea433a2a6152a3327db40f0f376af5e664dfc4c2491f82c993ac51c225b0ac2af0ca57ca24077807e4370baf3487d099dbc1cf3cff"
}