📅 Original date posted:2015-04-09
📝 Original message:BTW, I had originally proposed a "no-collision" scheme for
multi-signature wallets, which doesn't require modifying the key tree
structure at all, except for adding new internal and external chains
(2*N chains). All siblings watch all chains, but only generate
receiving and change addresses on their two chains.
The original document is here, which might be educational for the
purposes of understand precisely the problem that needs a solution (and
mine is a different solution than BIP45).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/58poxi60d8nfj5w/MultisigWalletNoCollide.pdf
I prefer not adding even more levels to the key tree, and (IMO) it makes
more sense to add more chains to the wallet instead of adding a new tree
level (as it allows for a simpler tree in the event that you don't need
separate cosigners). But I suspect that there's a certain momentum
behind the cosigner-index method already in BIP45? Just throwing it out
there.
-Alan
On 04/09/2015 06:24 PM, William Swanson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Kefkius <kefkius at maza.club> wrote:
>> 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.
> Suppose Alice and Bob share a multi-sig wallet. Alice would like to
> accept payment from Mallory, and Bob would like to accept payment from
> Maude. So, they would each like to create a separate payment address.
> If Alice and Bob both generate the same address, the incoming funds
> would be mixed together (bad), and Mallory and Maude might learn about
> the relationship between Alice and Bob (also bad).
>
> Unfortunately, Alice and Bob are in a place where they can't
> communicate (maybe Bob has no cell service). There is no way for Bob
> to send a message like "I'm making a request on address_index N,
> Alice, please use a different index for your request."
>
> The cosigner_index solves this. When they set up the wallet, Alice and
> Bob agree to always use a different value for the cosigner_index. That
> way, addresses from Alice will never overlap with addresses from Bob,
> since they are on different branches. Doing it this way adds privacy
> and doesn't cost anything.
>
> With this added in, your path would be:
>
> m / purpose' / wallet' / coin_type / cosigner_index / change / address_index
>
> XPUB's generated from your wallet would then be compatible with XPUB's
> generated by other multi-sig wallets like CoPay, since the
> (cosigner_index / change / address_index) structure stays the same.
>
> -William Swanson
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sm…mnq7h
2023-06-07 15:32:22
in reply to nevent1q…3dte
Author Public Key
npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:22Event JSON
{
"id": "6e85051078624f099fa4cba540c68dbe0026e5fb34acc99b639a416aced9ba3f",
"pubkey": "86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec",
"created_at": 1686151942,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a3eafd4a0eb465d4acd06fbd4c0710e302efa659d70aadc00e533ecbab060a60",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b41d9bd2ca17cbadd5414eab947fa024b101c4d4bbcb2594fc3d10b644090e5c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a178a4d8dc03df766d640bbff9f4a535decb16c595ad471cabee59e7f78f439d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-04-09\n📝 Original message:BTW, I had originally proposed a \"no-collision\" scheme for\nmulti-signature wallets, which doesn't require modifying the key tree\nstructure at all, except for adding new internal and external chains\n(2*N chains). All siblings watch all chains, but only generate\nreceiving and change addresses on their two chains. \n\nThe original document is here, which might be educational for the\npurposes of understand precisely the problem that needs a solution (and\nmine is a different solution than BIP45).\n\nhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/58poxi60d8nfj5w/MultisigWalletNoCollide.pdf\n\nI prefer not adding even more levels to the key tree, and (IMO) it makes\nmore sense to add more chains to the wallet instead of adding a new tree\nlevel (as it allows for a simpler tree in the event that you don't need\nseparate cosigners). But I suspect that there's a certain momentum\nbehind the cosigner-index method already in BIP45? Just throwing it out\nthere.\n\n-Alan\n\n\n\nOn 04/09/2015 06:24 PM, William Swanson wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Kefkius \u003ckefkius at maza.club\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I've amended the proposal's \"Motivation\" section slightly for\n\u003e\u003e clarification. I'm not sure how a \"cosigner_index\" branch would benefit\n\u003e\u003e this proposal. Granted, I don't fully understand the benefits of the\n\u003e\u003e \"cosigner_index\" branch in BIP-0045. From what I understand, the\n\u003e\u003e \"wallet\" branch of my proposal seems to accomplish a similar goal.\n\u003e Suppose Alice and Bob share a multi-sig wallet. Alice would like to\n\u003e accept payment from Mallory, and Bob would like to accept payment from\n\u003e Maude. So, they would each like to create a separate payment address.\n\u003e If Alice and Bob both generate the same address, the incoming funds\n\u003e would be mixed together (bad), and Mallory and Maude might learn about\n\u003e the relationship between Alice and Bob (also bad).\n\u003e\n\u003e Unfortunately, Alice and Bob are in a place where they can't\n\u003e communicate (maybe Bob has no cell service). There is no way for Bob\n\u003e to send a message like \"I'm making a request on address_index N,\n\u003e Alice, please use a different index for your request.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e The cosigner_index solves this. When they set up the wallet, Alice and\n\u003e Bob agree to always use a different value for the cosigner_index. That\n\u003e way, addresses from Alice will never overlap with addresses from Bob,\n\u003e since they are on different branches. Doing it this way adds privacy\n\u003e and doesn't cost anything.\n\u003e\n\u003e With this added in, your path would be:\n\u003e\n\u003e m / purpose' / wallet' / coin_type / cosigner_index / change / address_index\n\u003e\n\u003e XPUB's generated from your wallet would then be compatible with XPUB's\n\u003e generated by other multi-sig wallets like CoPay, since the\n\u003e (cosigner_index / change / address_index) structure stays the same.\n\u003e\n\u003e -William Swanson\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": "fdd227854497c984a1a8d8efd190fc8ef158cba77573d9d1d172445907cadc1155880f03ed86bb23fc5094eb81db565dfe8c410c3c5e6023578ec17529c3dc9f"
}