[Bitcoin-development] Proposal: No-Collision mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
This topic has been touched on briefly here before, but I wanted to solidify it and propose it as a BIP if there is wider support for it. Also, the topic is difficult to discuss without lots of pictures -- so that's what I've done (mainly to describe it to my team, but also as general documentation). It's in presentation form: https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-media/MultisigWalletNoCollide.pdf The proposal is that for an M-of-N multisig wallet based on BIP32, there should be N internal chains and N external chains. Each party is assigned a chain based on the lexicographic ordering of their wallet's root public key in the multisig. This guarantees that no parties are generating and distributing the same addresses, and also provides a certain level of built-in book-keeping. Coins being received on chain 2*x were created by participant x (receiving), and coins received on 2*x+1 are change outputs created by participant x (outgoing). Thus, it's easy from simply looking at the wallet structure who was responsible for which transactions. Alternatively, we could change it to suggest that each device is assigned a pair of chains. For a 2-of-3 there may 3 participants plus a CFO with a watch-only version of the multisig wallet. Then you might use four pairs of chains. I'm just not sure how they would be assigned. If this has been proposed before, then consider this my contribution to documentation. -Alan P.S. -- No-Collision Mode is not a great name. Happy to take suggestions for changing it. -- Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: No-Collision mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/23/2014 04:16 PM, Alan Reiner wrote: P.S. -- No-Collision Mode is not a great name. Happy to take suggestions for changing it. I'd call it a voting pool wallet, since that was the original application for this arrangement. Would be nice if you'd at least mention our work, since we did share it with you back in January and have been publicly documenting it ever since. Or does the fact that we're implementing it in btcwallet mean what we're working on is unmentionable here? - -- Justus Ranvier | Monetas http://monetas.net/ mailto:jus...@monetas.net | Public key ID : C3F7BB2638450DB5 | BM-2cTepVtZ6AyJAs2Y8LpcvZB8KbdaWLwKqc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUIaHAAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ21nwoH/3MYi9JibblZYmSOvCT1vJrN Ih+Q2WNumIAI+Y9bh4bBgLuhnG5lXyHedhYEUW+mfuwGiX+92Uc47nwaWED2/Lte 4Zk/KZnwLifdWCgKLdGpW6mzksRiOaVyU4vV5JchVOrGZZ2zYNIq+NcChtCph7Y5 L202ReAG+1dfSpp4rFckuv7pTVjNcrq89UN1tJFDNQdxzIRd7bwoeCuvyFurZagB 88bNiOl0BI3e090WC+CWmbC6BfqJiicn/d0gp/agW01wy7CVbLypPPTKmYqt3+54 msLUgaRHcbjuyKqu8HMHpYtgYVSNFg2q+U4SgmEepzPAkQ97khbduqA6i1B0ULM= =t/xp -END PGP SIGNATURE- 0x38450DB5.asc Description: application/pgp-keys -- Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: No-Collision mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/23/2014 12:37 PM, Justus Ranvier wrote: Would be nice if you'd at least mention our work, since we did share it with you back in January and have been publicly documenting it ever since. Or does the fact that we're implementing it in btcwallet mean what we're working on is unmentionable here? Please don't assume poor intentions or sneaky motives. I get a lot of emails from a lot of people about a lot of things. Nine months ago was an eternity in this world, and it can't be ruled out that I simply forgot. I have no problem giving credit where it is due, and I mentioned in my first email that I wasn't sure if my stuff was original. Please recap/link it here so that it can be part of this discussion. - -Alan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUIaRiAAoJEBHe6b77WWmFcBgP/2IiQWda5diBIrd8MjbtYz/X pF+B1zOipClil151pKN5h9f4CI75qwSBSG6pUS+QH1lCz97nr5AoVYV5SAaRzv0z L9Bz0PiHJFHd4IRbfuFqlPZB8mw2TMD7QWJx/1U+WmpnYYOGsUeJn25psIVZSRTU FTCsmYrA4cGZ4bZoUKI/eiXrHao8rm/zQ7QHKOMSFWZT57sNea67vlxPXKu+AkmK nEYa4hD0kD7/R/TrNcmRmOlmbqCnyjICd/yp8Lj26CdHPv3PAvaxUwSX3VhWPbdc UOiGeo+lXqRnBVpwMd+k7oFddwrc2k9ISRdUVsU86z3JdAXKl/dLS5UoOtfC1JA9 m90TuRtq4QuuzjLF3brI9FthuHNowA//qaVfjo/AYgsKy15td9UBtFbt4E9w263M NiFEmFkXfbE1JmIvmPG3AQEEdQ1/nmWiN5UcLrBfauEHMDQ1fGd89A8IBpus7bWM kYXboW3E9RBN4lB6OdyYU4AuH0YQhZodmry4iElMPox/tclmNiaeqDR8UYhD5BMd eQN9zAALyR1IY1167Ki/abVfWVf5jF7b0Eeu/wAfwcble3sCFrvWWAwzHjNi3GjY gNfy1eDTbwLj2M63QbtB+YqzQBZx3+SY4euGKYQ1s1CVV9ibAFI52oxeMhwzVOWF ofeDK5BPL8H+5L3tk+1o =tX2n -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: No-Collision mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/23/2014 04:48 PM, Alan Reiner wrote: Please recap/link it here so that it can be part of this discussion. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32736455/ http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/Deposit_Address_(voting_pools) Currently being implemented here: https://github.com/monetas/btcwallet/commits/vp - -- Really what's so annoying is how the BIP numbering process is handled in such a way that proposals can be silently pigeonholed. Especially so in the case of an *informational* BIP which requires no action on anyone's part (except for not using the same BIP43 purpose code). We resolved this by changing the naming scheme for our proposals, and their associated purpose codes, to not rely on centrally-allocated numbers. https://github.com/Open-Transactions/rfc/tree/master/bips - -- Justus Ranvier | Monetas http://monetas.net/ mailto:jus...@monetas.net | Public key ID : C3F7BB2638450DB5 | BM-2cTepVtZ6AyJAs2Y8LpcvZB8KbdaWLwKqc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUIajuAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ215dQH/1GNOmZd19/e2Ys7MNFx0gqz rDmTFBylU3lhJrMY4CDd4Duq5+2U7HgaovqgX8UqxquHWLQUwEzZLqdEPCifLg0c d/u90cRlClFAaOxPh4HV2/3aZoS2R27N+ZjOfziW7RZySBP/2fMt4/ra+SPbkcAQ oeplYgqMRDqW52C/o2zm4y4yb0TJPS+lzSNM+JfxHSPRyY55l0KzLJfUNz1RSOze A8UAwdsLiJROKPKiSrQcqFOejPV7uqSPh10ukm/AI0k8TbvX8ffGQ083394M9IuE DB/1eyeLQVP5+lQMWNrTHk3BQ75XBEDJoSukaRENcqxtHV2m1JzTWoS2CQBXi2M= =TwI3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- 0x38450DB5.asc Description: application/pgp-keys -- Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
