Message-ID: <5526DE29.1060605@maza.club>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:16:41 -0400
From: Kefkius <kefkius@maza.club>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <5524D347.4040507@maza.club>	<CABjHNoTbLz+dCPkctk95jPkdnagQQxOintYgswKCE6wB=TS9xg@mail.gmail.com>	<CACvEmnE6jgeRmTbyoOfW+jf=EB_EmPN4FdBXz-anm4tfKJscqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABjHNoR_Tg6bq3mJ8vkFAOPNHz8RS-FKAEx9APMZAVhct5H0SA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABjHNoR_Tg6bq3mJ8vkFAOPNHz8RS-FKAEx9APMZAVhct5H0SA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request For Discussion / BIP number -
 Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In Multisignature Deterministic Wallets
Precedence: list

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 <kinoshitajona@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 <swansontec@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 <kefkius@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