William Swanson [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2014-03-06 to 2015-06-12
💬 Posted a total of 10 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:32:32

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-04-24
📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, s7r <s7r at sky-ip.org> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I agree. Allen has a good point in the previous
> email too, so the suggestion might not fix anything and complicate things.
The BIP 62 approach to malleability isn't the only option. Another
approach is to sign the transaction in such a way that the input
txid's are allowed to change without invalidating the signatures. That
way, if malleability happens, you just adjust you transaction to match
and re-broadcast. That proposal is here:
https://github.com/scmorse/bitcoin-misc/blob/master/sighash_proposal.md
The "Build your own nHashType" thread on this mailing list contains
the discussion.
I personally prefer this solution, since it nails the problem
completely with one simple and obvious change. The BIP 62 approach is
more like a game of wac-a-mole.
-William

2023-06-07 17:27:41

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-12-04
📝 Original message:Yes. A few of us over here in San Diego actually started working on a
format like this a few months ago, but it's been on the back burner
for a while.
Our motivation was to come up with a shared HD wallet format. Say I
would like create a 2-of-3 multisig wallet using my phone, PC, and
hardware key fob. All three devices would presumably be running
different wallet software, so we need some sort of standardized HD
multisig chain-description format that all three wallets can
understand. That way, regardless of their other differences, the
wallets can at least agree on how to generate new addresses.
Of course, once you share this chain-description file with a third
party, they too can generate addresses out of the wallet. This can be
used for auditing (like for charities), for receive-only wallets (like
a merchant kiosk), and for recurring payments. The recurring payment
case is a little problematic, since you need to trust the payee with
your privacy. I imagine this would only be useful for payouts you
manage yourself, like a mining pool, and not something you share with
the general public.
Our format is very similar to yours. We have a script template, just
like you do, but we describe the HD chains in a separate section
rather than in-line with the script. The script template only comes
into being once the chains have been gathered together into one place,
so the chain descriptions need to stand alone.
Unfortunately, we still have a lot of details to work through before
we have a concrete proposal that's ready for this mailing list.
Perhaps we can work together to come up with something.
-William
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> Is anyone working on a serialisation format to convey P2SH HD chains? For
> example, to give someone who wants to make recurring payments a single token
> that can be used to generate many P2SH addresses paying to a multisig script.
>
> I'm thinking of something along the lines of a simple series of tokens, each
> indicating either a HD chain or literal script content. For all HD chains in
> the data, a child key would be generated based on the payment number, and all
> tokens concatenated to form the P2SH serialised script. Eg, for a simple 2-
> of-2, you would do something like this:
> literal(OP_2) HDChain HDChain literal(OP_2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG)
> Does this sufficiently cover all reasonable use cases?
>
> Luke