Hi Robert, I believe many of the same concerns apply in multisig. If one has the threshold and all the cosigner seeds, the funds in a multisig wallet can very likely be discovered by checking one of a handful of standard derivation paths/script types. Is the motivation of this BIP proposal strong enough to lose this capability?
Craig On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:43 PM Robert Spigler <[email protected]> wrote: > (IMO), where this proposal really excels, is mutlisig. And if you check > my commits, it actually originally was for multisig only, and I extended it > for multisig and single sig wallets. > > ghost43 and Jochen Hoenicke brought up important issues with this proposed > BIP re: single sig wallets, so I will be reverting this back for multisig > derivations. I believe that should cover all concerns. > > Please view the updated BIP here: > https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/blob/Sane_Mulitisg_deriv/Modern%20Hierarchy%20for%20Deterministic%20Multisignature%20Wallets.mediawiki > > And the updated PR here: https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/pull/1 > > Thank you, > > Robert > > Personal Fingerprint: BF0D 3C08 A439 5AC6 11C1 5395 B70B 4A77 F850 548F > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:44 PM, Robert Spigler via bitcoin-dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I (Robert Spigler) will respond in a next post. > > Thanks for your comments! > > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
