Hello all, Just wanted to give an update on progress for the "bip48" proposal.
There was some discussion on Twitter between a few multi-sig wallet devs: https://twitter.com/fullynoded/status/1339374947228008448?s=21 A few key points were brought up: 1. We should not define a `script_type` as a path level The explicit purpose of this BIP is to define an already existing standard that is used in practice across multi-sig wallets. In order to do that we must define a script_type in the path otherwise "loss of funds" could occur and backwards compatibility broken. 2. Another point brought up was that no-one uses the legacy derivation path m/48'/0'/0'/1', in practice all "legacy" p2sh multi-sig wallets use bip45. I agree and have removed all references to legacy p2sh derivations in the proposed bip. 3. We could possibly include a defined "wild card" in the script_type level to define any future address types (e.g. taproot) I agree this could be useful and think Ben Kaufman's suggestion of using m/48'/0'/0'/1' for this purpose makes sense, however I also think a future multi-sig standard for new address types may well be suited for a different BIP which could also address concern #1 around including `script_type` at all. Therefore I have not yet added any mention of "wild card" in the proposed bip but kept strictly to p2sh-p2wsh and p2wsh derivations as used in modern day wallets. I have create a PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1072 so that anyone may easily comment on it and any concerns can be raised. I think the community needs this and it is well over due. I have gotten positive feedback and support from other devs. Feedback welcome. Cheers, Fontaine Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, December 18, 2020 12:08 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > Thanks for explaining where instructions are lacking. > > How does this look? > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1046/files > > On Friday 18 December 2020 01:44:27 dentondevelopment wrote: > > > Hi Luke, > > It looks to have the same motivations and be compatible with > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253 (if I am reading it correctly). > > The only guidance I have on proposing a bip is what is on the readme > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/README.mediawiki > > 48 would be fitting if it is unused. > > This is still very much a work in progress and there does seem to be > > community support. > > Pavol and others have shared relevant info/suggestions which I will be > > using to update the proposal. > > Will share again here when the next draft is ready. > > Many thanks, > > Fontaine > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:16 AM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote: > > > > > BIP number 48 has not been assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers. > > > Is this intended to be compatible with > > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253 ? > > > Luke > > > On Wednesday 16 December 2020 14:10:28 dentondevelopment via bitcoin-dev > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Here is the repo instead of a static link: > > > > https://github.com/Fonta1n3/bips/blob/master/bip-0048.mediawiki > > > > Fontaine > > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:43 PM, dentondevelopment via > > > > bitcoin-dev > > > > > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > I would like to propose bip48 (taking bip44 as inspiration), with the > > > > > purpose of documenting modern multi-sig derivations. > > > > > Please see a rough draft of the proposed bip attached, comments/input > > > > > welcome. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Fontaine _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev