diff options
| author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2018-06-22 12:10:15 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2018-06-22 19:10:17 +0000 |
| commit | 946951097f759eb43c8585021ecf4fbaeb9dc0c4 (patch) | |
| tree | 9c64929e87147331516eb1d328dd1eae3ac4cd94 | |
| parent | fb82876de7fd5ccbee6276027d67bc9b42ddc026 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-946951097f759eb43c8585021ecf4fbaeb9dc0c4.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-946951097f759eb43c8585021ecf4fbaeb9dc0c4.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts
| -rw-r--r-- | 49/15929a46bbe30a0760b45d7ee424a0fd973c2e | 131 |
1 files changed, 131 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/49/15929a46bbe30a0760b45d7ee424a0fd973c2e b/49/15929a46bbe30a0760b45d7ee424a0fd973c2e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..348b96ff6 --- /dev/null +++ b/49/15929a46bbe30a0760b45d7ee424a0fd973c2e @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ +Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E01BEC84 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:10:17 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com + [209.85.218.48]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD0073B + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:10:17 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id t22-v6so7067266oih.6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:10:17 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=1Rj3EXoE28B/B6+KTC52IxhPIu3H7RLB+kSctoTHndk=; + b=tV8h8n0yUpJku+XKczPdReAiOLTSTQhFPzVPQNBHPzNnd3EDJhlpdGmcWiqTTj7eZH + BeSTPK3wRF5s6Ff6hQTmPzdxySr+qCZzLzk4hggpGmDKKeltWOO4LSfRV/3ww3iqWnrq + VCFEGkLpAXocr1kZ5MeAzPLr+icMfZBC10svkvBRlP6Ws7BFOHafBp/iaXztjIQ01BMe + 0iQkQioVAFoum6j50uhBDLVdqkOeYrl8g6akArfZTXV7Yu6mxwcQ0dmAWAWme3egSOLU + BqTXXTljAQIRz3OznxyzPJXFv7dZn2CQ3EX6r4sHS2ClY+rU8mKMqXkNgUsMz8Eh1jRt + RjUQ== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=1Rj3EXoE28B/B6+KTC52IxhPIu3H7RLB+kSctoTHndk=; + b=Abu5dYiZPNYyGUszVoEzB7kByBjY73m+fCdCBwtS/lgf9BKX+n63GL25XA+/mzILeP + Xm/7BLDSGKevpskNjfAIOf+xhQgEv8mUJyE3dbxMIpbpkajRhGEpZeZFGrEe17UWiY+A + n7tTQNjQpGHK/3o2Usee1e0CTU1Gy7T0k6Be/qRHGlhLVdRyBnW+6PsE0n+loRAsHE0d + YZmWJ3dMt2s07Y2+5hg0DtznK9trSsy4kN/FB5EYcXHsFLSaxWF6eO1C7F+0QycnFAWn + 2PSwdwRaKcDvfJdIcs2RCYCUCYk9agvw/jE45ZrI2URDw38QGPLSbKpdvH4VA5BgbDhc + Lolw== +X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E39B1s5KkXR6ipRT/0hs6CQ6HX0jVmvvvIO0keFBdH+xi6eI/wc + papJo4AmoL9802MDkwHExRrcwosSwXGiiRNTtgLrDg== +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJUEJolrfjTaiZ2BjmIOVdt8D+85itXXRZSx0DjjlslHKwQd9SVtlQCTFXfweWxoC1dbWigITWLHRJ+PCBy6a4= +X-Received: by 2002:aca:bfd6:: with SMTP id + p205-v6mr1631301oif.46.1529694616417; + Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:10:16 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 2002:a4a:6a89:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:10:15 + -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <20180621195654.GC99379@coinkite.com> +References: <CAPg+sBhGMxXatsyCAqeboQKH8ASSFAfiXzxyXR9UrNFnah5PPw@mail.gmail.com> + <CHCiA27GTRiVfkF1DoHdroJL1rQS77ocB42nWxIIhqi_fY3VbB3jsMQveRJOtsJiA4RaCAVe3VZmLZsXVYS3A5wVLNP2OgKQiHE0T27P2qc=@achow101.com> + <21a616f5-7a17-35b9-85ea-f779f20a6a2d@satoshilabs.com> + <20180621195654.GC99379@coinkite.com> +From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:10:15 -0700 +Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgdQqZ8sRSn=dd9EkavYJA6GBiCu6-v5k9ca-9WLPp72Q@mail.gmail.com> +To: Peter Gray <peter@coinkite.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 174 thoughts +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:10:18 -0000 + +On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Peter D. Gray via bitcoin-dev +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> I have personally implemented this spec on an embedded micro, as +> the signer and finalizer roles, and written multiple parsers for +> it as well. There is nothing wrong with it, and it perfectly meets +> my needs as a hardware wallet. + +This is awesome to hear. We need to hear from people who have comments +or issues they encounter while implementing, but also cases where +things are fine as is. + +> So, there is a good proposal already spec'ed and implemented by +> multiple parties. Andrew has been very patiently shepherding the PR +> for over six months already. +> +> PSBT is something we need, and has been missing from the ecosystem +> for a long time. Let's push this out and start talking about future +> versions after we learn from this one. + +I understand you find the suggestions being brought up in this thread +to be bikeshedding over details, and I certainly agree that "changing +X will gratuitously cause us more work" is a good reason not to make +breaking changes to minutiae. However, at least abstractly speaking, +it would be highly unfortunate if the fact that someone implemented a +draft specification results in a vested interest against changes which +may materially improve the standard. + +In practice, the process surrounding BIPs' production readiness is not +nearly as clear as it could be, and there are plenty of BIPs actually +deployed in production which are still marked as draft. So in reality, +truth is that this thread is "late", and also why I started the +discussion by asking what the state of implementations was. As a +result, the discussion should be "which changes are worth the hassle", +and not "what other ideas can we throw in" - and some of the things +brought up are certainly the latter. + +So to get back to the question what changes are worth the hassle - I +believe the per-input derivation paths suggested by matejcik may be +one. As is written right now, I believe BIP174 requires Signers to +pretty much always parse or template match the scripts involved. This +means it is relatively hard to implement a Signer which is compatible +with many types of scripts - including ones that haven't been +considered yet. However, if derivation paths are per-input, a signer +can just produce partial signatures for all keys it has the master +for. As long as the Finalizer understands the script type, this would +mean that Signers will work with any script. My guess is that this +would be especially relevant to devices where the Signer +implementation is hard to change, like when it is implemented in a +hardware signer directly. + +What do you think? + +Cheers, + +-- +Pieter + |