1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <swansontec@gmail.com>) id 1YfkhG-00055G-9U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:46:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.176; envelope-from=swansontec@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qk0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com ([209.85.220.176])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YfkhF-0002c7-7d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:46:50 +0000
Received: by qkx62 with SMTP id 62so76151958qkx.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.39.179 with SMTP id v48mr28263893qgv.105.1428479203843;
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.149.23 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5524D347.4040507@maza.club>
References: <5524D347.4040507@maza.club>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:46:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABjHNoTbLz+dCPkctk95jPkdnagQQxOintYgswKCE6wB=TS9xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com>
To: Kefkius <kefkius@maza.club>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(swansontec[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YfkhF-0002c7-7d
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request For Discussion / BIP number -
Multi-Currency Hierarchy For Use In Multisignature Deterministic Wallets
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:46:50 -0000
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
|
