bip48 proposal

bip48 proposal
2020-12-16 14:10 ` dentondevelopment
  2020-12-17 10:58 ` Pavol Rusnak
  
From: dentondevelopment @ 2020-12-16 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 229 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 455 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: bip-0048.mediawiki --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 6667 bytes --]

<pre>
  BIP: 48
  Layer: Applications
  Title: Multi-Account/Multi-Script Hierarchy for Deterministic Multi Signature Wallets
  Author: Peter Denton <dentondevelopment@protonmail•com>
  Comments-Summary: No comments
  Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0048
  Status: Proposed
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2020-12-16
</pre>

==Abstract==

This BIP defines a logical hierarchy for deterministic multi-sig wallets based on an algorithm
described in BIP-0067 (BIP67 from now on), BIP-0032 (BIP32 from now on) and purpose scheme described in
BIP-0043 (BIP43 from now on).

This BIP is a particular application of BIP43.

==Motivation==

The hierarchy proposed in this paper is quite comprehensive. It allows the handling of
multiple accounts, external and internal chains per account, multiple script types and
millions of addresses per chain.

==Key sorting==

Any wallet that supports BIP48 inherently supports deterministic key sorting as per BIP67 so that all possible
multi-signature addresses/scripts are derived from deterministically sorted public keys.

==Path levels==

We define the following 6 levels in BIP32 path:

<pre>
m / purpose' / coin_type' / account' / script_type' / change / address_index
</pre>

`h` or `'` in the path indicates that BIP32 hardened derivation is used.

Each level has a special meaning, described in the chapters below.

===Purpose===

Purpose is a constant set to 48' following the BIP43 recommendation.
It indicates that the subtree of this node is used according to this specification.

Hardened derivation is used at this level.

===Coin type===

One master node (seed) can be used for either multiple Bitcoin networks.
Sharing the same space for various networks has some disadvantages.

Avoiding reusing addresses across networks and improving privacy issues.

Coin type `0` for mainnet and `1` for testnet.

Hardened derivation is used at this level.

===Account===

This level splits the key space into independent user identities,
so the wallet never mixes the coins across different accounts.

Users can use these accounts to organize the funds in the same
fashion as bank accounts; for donation purposes (where all
addresses are considered public), for saving purposes,
for common expenses etc.

Accounts are numbered from index 0 in sequentially increasing manner.
This number is used as child index in BIP32 derivation.

Hardened derivation is used at this level.

Software should prevent a creation of an account if a previous account does not
have a transaction history (meaning none of its addresses have been used before).

Software needs to discover all used accounts after importing the seed from
an external source. Such an algorithm is described in "Account discovery" chapter.

===Script===

This level splits the key space into three separate `script_type`(s). To provide
optimum backward compatibility.

The recommended default is pay to witness script hash `m/48'/0'/0'/2'`.

The following represent mainnet, account 0.

`1'`: Nested Segwit (p2sh-p2wsh) `m/48'/0'/0'/1'`</br>
`2'`: Native Segwit (p2wsh) `m/48'/0'/0'/2'`</br>
`3'`: Legacy (p2sh) `m/48'/0'/0'/3'`</br>

Easily expanded to account for new script types.

===Change===

Constant 0 is used for external chain and constant 1 for internal chain (also
known as change addresses). External chain is used for addresses that are meant
to be visible outside of the wallet (e.g. for receiving payments). Internal
chain is used for addresses which are not meant to be visible outside of the
wallet and is used for return transaction change.

Public derivation is used at this level.

===Index===

Addresses are numbered from index 0 in sequentially increasing manner.
This number is used as child index in BIP32 derivation.

Public derivation is used at this level.

==Account discovery==

When the master seed is imported from an external source the software should
start to discover the accounts in the following manner:

* derive the first accounts node (index = 0)
* derive the external chain node of this account
* scan addresses of the external chain; respect the gap limit described below
* if no transactions are found on the external chain, stop discovery
* if there are some transactions, increase the account index and go to step 1

This algorithm is successful because software should disallow creation of new
accounts if previous one has no transaction history, as described in chapter
"Account" above.

Please note that the algorithm works with the transaction history, not account
balances, so you can have an account with 0 total coins and the algorithm will
still continue with discovery.

===Address gap limit===

Address gap limit is currently set to 20. If the software hits 20 unused
addresses in a row, it expects there are no used addresses beyond this point
and stops searching the address chain. We scan just the external chains, because
internal chains receive only coins that come from the associated external chains.

Wallet software should warn when the user is trying to exceed the gap limit on
an external chain by generating a new address.

==Examples==


|network
|account
|script
|chain
|address
|path
|-
|mainnet
|first
|p2wsh
|external
|first
|m / 48' / 0' / 0' / 2' / 0 / 0
|-
|mainnet
|first
|p2wsh
|external
|second
|m / 48' / 0' / 0' / 2' / 0 / 1
|-
|mainnet
|first
|p2wsh
|change
|first
|m / 48' / 0' / 0' / 2' / 1 / 0
|-
|mainnet
|first
|p2wsh
|change
|second
|m / 48' / 0' / 0' / 2' / 1 / 1
|-
|mainnet
|second
|p2wsh
|external
|first
|m / 48' / 0' / 1' / 2' / 0 / 0
|-
|mainnet
|second
|p2wsh
|external
|second
|m / 48' / 0' / 1' / 2' / 0 / 1
|-
|mainnet
|second
|change
|p2sh
|first
|m / 48' / 0' / 1' / 3' / 1 / 0
|-
|mainnet
|second
|p2sh
|change
|second
|m / 48' / 1' / 1' / 3' / 1 / 1
|-
|testnet
|first
|p2sh-p2wsh
|external
|first
|m / 48' / 1' / 0' / 1' / 0 / 0
|-
|testnet
|first
|p2wsh
|external
|second
|m / 48' / 1' / 0' / 2' / 0 / 1
|-
|testnet
|first
|p2wsh
|change
|first
|m / 48' / 1' / 0' / 2' / 1 / 0
|-
|testnet
|first
|p2wsh
|change
|second
|m / 48' / 1' / 0' / 2' / 1 / 1
|-
|testnet
|second
|p2wsh
|external
|first
|m / 48' / 1' / 1' / 2' / 0 / 0
|-
|testnet
|second
|p2wsh
|external
|second
|m / 48' / 1' / 1' / 2' / 0 / 1
|-
|testnet
|second
|p2wsh
|change
|first
|m / 48' / 1' / 1' / 2' / 1 / 0
|-
|testnet
|second
|p2wsh
|change
|second
|m / 48 h / 1' / 1' / 2' / 1 / 1


==Reference==

* [[bip-0067.mediawiki|BIP67 - Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting]]
* [[bip-0032.mediawiki|BIP32 - Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets]]
* [[bip-0043.mediawiki|BIP43 - Purpose Field for Deterministic Wallets]]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-16 12:43 [bitcoin-dev] bip48 proposal dentondevelopment

  2020-12-16 17:16   ` Luke Dashjr
  2020-12-17 10:58 ` Pavol Rusnak
  
From: dentondevelopment @ 2020-12-16 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dentondevelopment, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 606 bytes --]

Here is the repo instead of a static link: https://github.com/Fonta1n3/bips/blob/master/bip-0048.mediawiki

Fontaine

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1372 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-16 14:10 ` dentondevelopment

  2020-12-16 18:48     ` Keagan McClelland
  2020-12-18  1:44     ` dentondevelopment
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2020-12-16 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, dentondevelopment

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](https://protonmail.com) 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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-16 17:16   ` Luke Dashjr

  2020-12-18  1:44     ` dentondevelopment
  
From: Keagan McClelland @ 2020-12-16 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]

I was just looking into the conventions around this yesterday! It seems
like this proposal is mostly just formalizing stuff that is already a tacit
standard. I'm glad to see that someone is documenting it somewhere more
"official".

It appears consistent with https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/253, However,
due to historical timing, the PR you linked doesn't include any standards
around segwit conventions.

In the review thread you had mentioned that you needed an ACK from prusnak,
but he explicitly gave a NACK in favor of a separate proposal for BIP 48,
which seems like it could be something like the OP. Reading the proposal it
seems consistent with the pull request that you linked, as well. At the end
of the thread the author of PR#253 said they would open a separate
proposal, but it appears that it never materialized. Was there a reason for
this?

Keagan

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:17 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.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](https://protonmail.com) 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3336 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-16 12:43 [bitcoin-dev] bip48 proposal dentondevelopment
  2020-12-16 14:10 ` dentondevelopment

  2020-12-18  1:49   ` dentondevelopment
  
From: Pavol Rusnak @ 2020-12-17 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dentondevelopment, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1091 bytes --]

I applaud this effort!

We tried to document the 48 path usage in this document:

https://github.com/trezor/trezor-firmware/blob/master/docs/misc/purpose48.md

The only difference I can spot is that our document also documents script_type=0 which is for the raw BIP-11 multisig. While almost not used in the wild, it could be imho documented in this proposed BIP as well.

—
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol “stick” Rusnak
Co-founder and CTO, SatoshiLabs

> On Wednesday, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:48 PM, dentondevelopment via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org (mailto: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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2430 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-16 17:16   ` Luke Dashjr
  2020-12-16 18:48     ` Keagan McClelland

  2020-12-18  4:08       ` Luke Dashjr
  
From: dentondevelopment @ 2020-12-18  1:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  bitcoin-dev

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 <luke@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




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-17 10:58 ` Pavol Rusnak

  
From: dentondevelopment @ 2020-12-18  1:49 UTC ( / )
  To: Pavol Rusnak;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion



Thanks for the link, will certainly be using the provided info as a reference and updating soon.

Regards,
Fontaine

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, December 17, 2020 6:58 PM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs•com> wrote:

> I applaud this effort!
>
> We tried to document the 48 path usage in this document:
>
> https://github.com/trezor/trezor-firmware/blob/master/docs/misc/purpose48.md
>
> The only difference I can spot is that our document also documents script_type=0 which is for the raw BIP-11 multisig. While almost not used in the wild, it could be imho documented in this proposed BIP as well.
>
> —
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol “stick” Rusnak
> Co-founder and CTO, SatoshiLabs
>
>> On Wednesday, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:48 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
2020-12-18  1:44     ` dentondevelopment

  2021-02-24 14:02         ` dentondevelopment
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2020-12-18  4:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dentondevelopment;  bitcoin-dev

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 <luke@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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2020-12-18  4:08       ` Luke Dashjr

  2021-02-25 10:23           ` Craig Raw
  
From: dentondevelopment @ 2021-02-24 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  bitcoin-dev

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 <luke@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 luke@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




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-02-24 14:02         ` dentondevelopment

  
From: Craig Raw @ 2021-02-25 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dentondevelopment, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4722 bytes --]

+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 <luke@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 luke@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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6748 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]