BIP: Deterministic multi-signature P2SH addresses#146
BIP: Deterministic multi-signature P2SH addresses#146laanwj merged 14 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Think you need a line here, this address isnt being displated in the rendered mediawiki view.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, seems to have been the same for the first set of public keys too. Fixed now
|
ACK. Can confirm bitcore follows this, and I think it's good to have a BIP to clarify this issue, given every developer doing P2SH multisig will encounter it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think here "bitcoinj" should also be mentioned.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked before, afaik it does not force an ordering; https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/script/ScriptBuilder.java#L168
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like it sorts it here: https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/script/ScriptBuilder.java#L331
add bitcoinJ
|
Cheers @maraoz! Already borrowed the one bitcore happened to have :) |
|
As a matter of procedure this proposal can not have 90 now. PLEASE discuss your proposals on the list and just use BIP?? or BIP_draft_proposer or some other placeholder name. |
|
@gmaxwell I thought this was discussed on the list not so long ago? |
|
@btcdrak I have no freeking idea. Just immediate intervention is required to prevent ANOTHER incident of multiple people squatting a number. |
|
That's absolutely fine, I'm not fussed either way, but can see how it can cause confusion later on. |
|
Yep. Working on a last call now. Good work. |
|
ACK from me. I was involved in some of the discussions of this proposal in the beginning so it's all good from my side. |
|
ACK from CryptoCorp |
|
Whoop, we've been assigned BIP0067 for this! Updated the PR so the README reflects this now also. I've changed the type from Informational to Standard, seems to be what most process BIPs are marked as. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BIPs really shouldn't be listing all implementations, just a (few) reference ones)... Recommend at least not listing ones based on bad security practices like brainwallets.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the reason for listing as many as possible is initially too show there's already a bunch of wallets and libs following this.
2nd is imo that this BIP aims to close the gap for compatibility, I think it's relevant.
imo it should stay in until the BIP is accepted, since it's relevant for the discussion
Also add acknowledgement to Luke-Jr
|
@luke-jr - Forgot to mention, following your advise on IRC a while ago I altered the BIP to mention BIP-0011. Mind having a look? |
BIP: Deterministic multi-signature P2SH addresses
|
does this mean it's accepted? or just merged the draft? |
|
It just means that the BIP is part of the official repository now. There hasn't been a status change (those should be discussed on the mailing list, as described in BIP 0001, after the standard has been in use for significant amount of time, but it looks like the majority of BIPs stays at Draft status). |
9 participants
BIP for standard multisignature P2SH addresses given m and a set of public keys.
Bip90 is just a number which doesn't collide, I will request one via the mailing list now.