Hi Chris,
Very interested in this!
Never understood why a Storj/Sia couldn't just use Bitcoin/LN instead of an alt.
Robert Spigler
Personal Fingerprint: BF0D 3C08 A439 5AC6 11C1 5395 B70B 4A77 F850 548F
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 1:07 PM, Christopher Gilliard
I don't quite understand your NACK.
The following are measures you say we should take as best practices, which I
believe are all implemented:
>A) We should accept that users must to backup their multisig account maps
>(descriptor with only xpubs) along with their cosigner key material to be
Hi Sjors,
Thanks for your comments.
>Chicken-egg problem
I agree with Hugo's detailed response here.
>Losing multisig setup context (in the event of a fire where you only recover
>your steel engraved mnemonic(s), but no longer have the wallet descriptors.)
Devices need to persist the
I'd like to pre-register a comment that I don't think signet should be a
consideration for MTP vs height, since taproot is already activated on signet,
and there's no indication that ST will be used in the future (we should
continue our search for the ideal activation method)
Robert Spigler
Hi Craig,
For multisignature wallets, you need to back up the descriptor anyway,
especially for secure multisignature schemes
(https://github.com/nunchuk-io/bips/pull/1).
To restore, the user needs M private key data, and all public keys. The
descriptor provides the required public key data,
: 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
wrote:
> I (Robert Spigler) will respond in a next p
Please keep comments in the ML. That way it can be archived, seen be anyone
interested in the proposal, and have as much review and improvements as
necessary/possible. The ML isn't taproot activation discussion only :)
For summary:
David Harding commented to Craig's post:
[Replying off list
No, wallets don't and shouldn't have to check all script types on recovery.
Descriptor Wallets solve all of this.
To back up a multisignature wallet, each cosigner stores their xprv (how you do
this; BIP39, WIF, etc, is out of scope). and the wallet descriptor. This is
done, for example, in
I agree with Matt.
The naked pubkey is required for some of the benefits being implemented
(snicker coinjoins).
Even with pubkey hashes, bitcoin could still be stolen because the pubkey is
published on spend. Regardless, QC needs to be fixed later on (decades), and
shouldn't be a reason to
Hello,
I am working on a draft BIP for a signature and script independent hierarchy
for deterministic wallets.
I believe with the implementation of descriptor wallets, the typical use case
of of a BIP43 `purpose’` level per script type is redundant. The
differentiation of separate BIPs for
Hello All,
In the past, discussions around how to securely store/use/setup PSBT's have
been decided as out of scope for BIP 174 - "it is not a specification of how
hardware wallets should behave, it is a description of a data structure and the
abstract workflow around it"
For example, Nicolas
11 matches
Mail list logo
