[Bitcoin-development] Request For Discussion / BIP number - Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In Multisignature Deterministic Wallets
kinoshitajona at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 16:28:42 UTC 2015
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
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...
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.
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
> 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
> > http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual-
> > 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
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev