Hello Craig,
Thank you for putting this proposal together. It is indeed another big
missing piece of the puzzle.
I would like to echo some of the comments already made by others (and you
yourself) on this thread, that this proposal seems to have some inherent
conflicts between the 2 goals it
Hello Salvatore,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:03 AM Salvatore Ingala
wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> First of all, thank you for the impressive work on leading the
> standardization efforts!
>
> I believe one ought to more clearly distinguish the "Signer" (as in: one
> of the parties in the multisig setup),
Hi Michael,
Comments inline.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 7:34 PM Michael.flaxman <
michael.flax...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> I appreciate the effort you and everyone else is making to improve
> multisig in bitcoin!
>
Thanks.
> I like that this BIP gets rid of SLIP132 version bytes, as
ormat to deal with this
>
That's not quite accurate. The spec stores the top-level descriptor
(XPUB/*) along with the path restrictions (/0/*,/1/*), not the receive
descriptor.
The path restrictions would allow you to extend on the spec. There's also
a VERSION field.
Best,
Hugo
>
> Sjors
&g
Hi Sjors
Thanks for the feedback!
The first step is for the Coordinator to generate a TOKEN, presumably using
> its own entropy. But IIUC anyone who intercepts that token can decrypt any
> future step in the setup process. This suggests a chicken-egg problem where
> you need some pre-existing
Hi all,
Please find below the complete draft of the Bitcoin Secure Multisig Setup
(BSMS) BIP. The spec has gone through a number of important updates in the
last month or so. Thanks everyone who has participated in the review
process.
As a PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1097
A few
and
> also should take care not to reuse XPUBs). Perhaps this can be made the
> default behavior.
>
> Best,
> Hugo
>
>
>>
>> These concerns noted, I agree it's a good idea to have Signers save the
>> multisig configuration as proposed, and it would be great to have
&
configuration as proposed, and it would be great to have
> standardisation in hww import and export formats (not just for multisig).
> On that note, I'd love to see greater adoption of the efficient UR2.0
> standard and associated formats for airgapped data transmission using QR
> codes.
Hi all,
I have updated the proposal based on further feedback. The new spec is
included at the bottom.
I have also created a public Github PR to make it easier to comment on the
text of the spec itself: https://github.com/nunchuk-io/bips/pull/1 .
Could someone please let me know what else needs
xibility in the data format allows
> > each vendor to customize the UX based on their respective device
> > capabilities.
> >
> > Best,
> > Hugo
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:25 AM Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev@lists
on their respective device capabilities.
Best,
Hugo
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:25 AM Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> В Thu, 11 Feb 2021 05:45:33 -0800
> Hugo Nguyen via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> > > > ENCRYPTION_KEY = SHA256(SHA256(T
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:05 PM Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What Blockchain Commons (and the Airgapped Wallet Community) call a policy
> map would be
>
> ```
> wsh(sortedmulti(1,,,))
> ```
>
> A PBKDF of that as would be unique for all 2 of
*BIP39 seed words list.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:11 AM Hugo Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Pavol,
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:25 AM Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> В Thu, 11 Feb 2021 05:45:33 -0800
>> Hugo
Hi Pavol,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:25 AM Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> В Thu, 11 Feb 2021 05:45:33 -0800
> Hugo Nguyen via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> > > > ENCRYPTION_KEY = SHA256(SHA256(TOKEN))
> > >
ryption might be an overkill.
Best,
Hugo
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 12:39, Hugo Nguyen via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:19 AM Christopher Allen <
>> christoph...@lifewithalacrity.
r from the coordinator to the signers,
> the crypto-output format: [
> https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/papers/bcr-2020-010-output-desc.md
> ]
>
>
Thanks, will update!
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:53 AM Hugo Nguyen via bitcoin-dev &l
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:19 AM Christopher Allen <
christoph...@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:06 AM Hugo Nguyen wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think reusing XPUBs inside different multisig wallets is a good
>> idea... For starters, loss of privacy in one wallet will
Hi Christopher,
Comments inline.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:31 AM Christopher Allen <
christoph...@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:
> In the Airgapped Wallet Community we also have been investigating
> solutions, in particular as current common practice is is reuse the same
> xpub for all multisigs,
Hi all,
I would like to propose a new BIP for Secure Multisig Setup.
This proposal has taken inputs from folks at Coldcard, Shift Crypto and
Cobo -- listed below as co-authors.
This was inspired by my own experience working with hardware wallets on the
market, as well as existing research into
19 matches
Mail list logo
