+1 It would be greatly beneficial to have a referenceable standard for the convention that everyone (afaik) is following anyway. I think the current scope is now correct and agree with Fontaine's comments on the feedback.
Craig On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:17 PM dentondevelopment via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
