MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHm82F78NpV0UmyVMuka64Y1b0rwBO6FNj=KwAOm885d9q4xJg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHm82F78NpV0UmyVMuka64Y1b0rwBO6FNj=KwAOm885d9q4xJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:42:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH+Axy6Ldsx+AABMTSAN=_-Y4CWRyy+_E1eLNKhymOiosZ_81w@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?44GK44Gu44GL44Gh44GK?= <onokatio@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7de330577c02ef5"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MultiSig request URI proposal
Precedence: list

--000000000000f7de330577c02ef5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello!

A URI is useful as a standard for one-way communication, but on-chain
multisig requires many steps. multiple parties need to provide signatures,
and one party needs to aggregate all the signatures and publish the
transaction. This URI scheme would allow one to pass along a raw
transaction in one direction, but once the signer has signed the
transaction, what are they supposed to do with it? You might be thinking
you could include a callback URL, like BIP72 does, so the signer can pass
the signed transaction back to the organizer. However, BIP72 was created as
a backwards-compatible extension to BIP70, which was designed for one-way
communication. Since there is no way to be backwards compatible here, there
is no need to limit yourself to the URI system. Instead of creating a new
URI and using it for something it is not suited for, it would be better (in
my opinion) to find a different method that is better suited for two-way
communication.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:52 PM =E3=81=8A=E3=81=AE=E3=81=8B=E3=81=A1=E3=81=
=8A via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I have an idea that subject.
>
> There are already BIP 21.
> But Multisig request URI is non exist.
>
> My idea is below:
>
> bitcoin-sigreq://{{rawtx}}?{{param}}
>
> rawtx: raw transaction (encoded by base64)
> param:
> - pubkey=3D{{public key for sign key pair}}
> - hd_wallet_position=3D{{path for HD wallet position}}
>
> This URI scheme is used for multisig request from website to user's local
> wallet.
>
> How do you think ?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000f7de330577c02ef5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hello!<div><br></div><div>A URI is useful as a standard fo=
r one-way communication, but on-chain multisig requires many steps. multipl=
e parties need to provide signatures, and one party needs to aggregate all =
the signatures and publish the transaction. This URI scheme would allow one=
 to pass along a raw transaction in one direction, but once the signer has =
signed the transaction, what are they supposed to do with it? You might be =
thinking you could include a callback URL, like BIP72 does, so the signer c=
an pass the signed transaction back to the organizer. However, BIP72 was cr=
eated as a backwards-compatible extension to BIP70, which was designed for =
one-way communication. Since there is no way to be backwards compatible her=
e, there is no need to limit yourself to the URI system. Instead of creatin=
g a new URI and using it for something it is not suited for, it would be be=
tter (in my opinion) to find a different method that is better suited for t=
wo-way communication.</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:52 PM =E3=81=8A=E3=81=AE=E3=81=8B=E3=81=A1=E3=81=
=8A via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi.<div><br></div><div>I have an i=
dea that subject.</div><div><br></div><div>There are already BIP 21.</div><=
div>But Multisig request URI is non exist.</div><div><br></div><div>My idea=
 is below:</div><div><br></div><div>bitcoin-sigreq://{{rawtx}}?{{param}}</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>rawtx: raw transaction (encoded by base64)</div><div=
>param:</div><div>- pubkey=3D{{public key for sign key pair}}</div><div>- h=
d_wallet_position=3D{{path for HD wallet position}}</div><div><br></div><di=
v>This URI scheme is used for multisig request from website to user&#39;s l=
ocal wallet.</div><div><br></div><div>How do you think ?</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000f7de330577c02ef5--