π
Original date posted:2015-04-16
π Original message: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, ζ¨γδΈγγγͺ <kinoshitajona at 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 at 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 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Vertoe Qhor [ARCHIVE] /
npub1drβ¦umpmf
2023-06-07 15:32:23
in reply to nevent1qβ¦3kym
Author Public Key
npub1drn3kjh5sf3nt805w5egch36xmfvetwjedq7ffzaxmpt7xs26yksfumpmfSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:23Event JSON
{
"id": "4875f0c4d0fc41adb7d1f3f371540d8ad572d56915e2a456f9af293614c20a38",
"pubkey": "68e71b4af48263359df475328c5e3a36d2ccadd2cb41e4a45d36c2bf1a0ad12d",
"created_at": 1686151943,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a3eafd4a0eb465d4acd06fbd4c0710e302efa659d70aadc00e533ecbab060a60",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"92319c23f432da4ead3ecb67505380bcb80f150be8187db752180efd6ccac718",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec"
]
],
"content": "π
Original date posted:2015-04-16\nπ Original message:I'm supporting this proposal and since I'm already using the Encompass\nwallet software I would like to highlight that this use case is not only\npractical but has already a working reference implementation.\n\nThe only donwside I see is that it means we get yet another HD wallet\ndefinition.\n\nIs there anything else what would speak against assigning a BIP number\nto this proposal? This would allow kefkius and his team to use the\nstandard in Encompass and share it with other software packages which\nmight be interested in using deterministic cross-currency wallets.\n\nOn 04/09/2015 10:16 PM, Kefkius wrote:\n\u003e William,\n\u003e\n\u003e I've amended the proposal's \"Motivation\" section slightly for\n\u003e clarification. I'm not sure how a \"cosigner_index\" branch would benefit\n\u003e this proposal. Granted, I don't fully understand the benefits of the\n\u003e \"cosigner_index\" branch in BIP-0045. From what I understand, the\n\u003e \"wallet\" branch of my proposal seems to accomplish a similar goal.\n\u003e\n\u003e Jona,\n\u003e\n\u003e Your explanation is correct. As for this being appropriate as a BIP, I\n\u003e agree that it's an arguable point to say it improves Bitcoin. However,\n\u003e this proposal exists because of BIP-0044, which also describes a\n\u003e multi-currency hierarchy. For that reason, I think this is an\n\u003e appropriate proposal.\n\u003e\n\u003e Thank you both for your feedback.\n\u003e\n\u003e On 04/08/2015 12:41 PM, William Swanson wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Oops, sorry I missed that.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Since that's the reason this proposal exists, I would consider putting\n\u003e\u003e it right up top where people can see it. Also, since this proposal is\n\u003e\u003e specifically designed for multi-sig, I would look at what BIP45 is\n\u003e\u003e doing and maybe incorporate a \"cosigner_index\" branch. Otherwise, this\n\u003e\u003e idea seems like a reasonable way to organize a wallet.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e -William\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM, ζ¨γδΈγγγͺ \u003ckinoshitajona at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e William,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I believe the reasoning for this is stated in the Coin Type section.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"Public derivation is used so that cosigners need only know one of each\n\u003e\u003e\u003e other's public keys, rather than needing to distribute public keys for each\n\u003e\u003e\u003e coin.\"\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e BIP44 has a coin level, but it's a private derived level, so cosigners would\n\u003e\u003e\u003e not be able to generate multiple crypto currencies of each others' without\n\u003e\u003e\u003e giving each other n xpubs where n is the number of currencies shared. This\n\u003e\u003e\u003e new proposal basically sticks coin type on the public derivation side of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e things so that I could generate litecoin or darkcoin multisigs without your\n\u003e\u003e\u003e permission...\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Kefkius,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e This BIP seems like a good fit for multi-currency wallets based on multisig.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e So kudos for putting it in writing.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e However, I don't know if this is really a BIP thing. It's not improving\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal... remember?), in fact, by definition\n\u003e\u003e\u003e it is improving altcoin usability.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e For that reason alone I will say I disagree for a BIP for this.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e - Jona\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 2015-04-08 16:46 GMT+09:00 William Swanson \u003cswansontec at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It's not really clear why this is better than BIP 44 as it already\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e stands. You have the same fields, but they are just in a different\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e order. Couldn't you just use the existing BIP 44 hierarchy, but add\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e the convention that \"wallet/account N\" is the same wallet in each\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e supported currency?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e For example, if I have a wallet called \"business expenses\", which\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e happens to be wallet m / 44' / 0' / 5', for Bitcoin, then the same\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e wallet would be m / 44' / 3' / 5' for Dogecoin, and m / 44' / 2' / 5'\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e for Litecoin.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I am trying to think of examples where your proposal is better than\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e BIP 44, but I can't think of any. Even backup recovery works fine. I\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e assume that your idea is to continue iterating over the different\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e wallet indices as long as you are finding funds in *any* currency.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Well, you can still do that with BIP 44. The fields are in a different\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e order, but that doesn't affect the algorithm in any way.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Maybe you have some deeper insight I'm not seeing, but if so, you need\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e to clearly explain that in your motivation section. The current\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e explanation, \"This limits the possible implementations of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e multi-currency, multisignature wallets,\" is pretty vauge. Also, there\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e is nothing in this spec that addresses the multisignature use-case.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e The BIP 45 spec does a lot of extra work to make multisignature work\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e smoothly.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I'm not trying to criticize your proposal. I'm just trying to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e understand what it's trying to accomplish.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e -William Swanson\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Kefkius \u003ckefkius at maza.club\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I have a potential BIP, \"Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Multisignature Deterministic Wallets.\" I'm requesting discussion on it,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e and possibly assignment of a BIP number.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It's located in this github gist:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://gist.github.com/Kefkius/1aa02945e532f8739023\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT\n\u003e\u003e Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard\n\u003e\u003e Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises\n\u003e\u003e http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_\n\u003e\u003e source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15\u0026utm_medium=email\u0026utm_campaign=VA_SF\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\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": "16eccb5237d161cb7123772d0e902de580a88408cf797dca9779764bd378e3ac9c4695899c95a10cee178d3ddee08a9e3331b7b28c1fbfe3162b7ffc61ab65f2"
}