William, I've amended the proposal's "Motivation" section slightly for clarification. I'm not sure how a "cosigner_index" branch would benefit this proposal. Granted, I don't fully understand the benefits of the "cosigner_index" branch in BIP-0045. From what I understand, the "wallet" branch of my proposal seems to accomplish a similar goal.
Jona, Your explanation is correct. As for this being appropriate as a BIP, I agree that it's an arguable point to say it improves Bitcoin. However, this proposal exists because of BIP-0044, which also describes a multi-currency hierarchy. For that reason, I think this is an appropriate proposal. Thank you both for your feedback. On 04/08/2015 12:41 PM, William Swanson wrote: > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
