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, 木ノ下じょな <kinoshitaj...@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 <swanson...@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 <kefk...@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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
