Multisig addresses versions are '3', same as Bitcoin #179

Closed
aspect opened this Issue Nov 5, 2014 · 23 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@aspect

aspect commented Nov 5, 2014

Gentlemen,

We are doing massive amounts of work with Litecoin and Bitcoin in our project. This project extensively uses Multi Signature addresses. Naturally (and I saw there was an issue closed previously related to this, but couldn't find it) Litecoin Multi Signature addresses are indistinguishable from Bitcion as their version prefix appears as '3'...

This is creating a lot of confusion, even among our developers as we exchange addresses during testing. I myself spent few minutes today on blockchain.info wondering why a transaction was not transmitted, just to realize that it was an LTC multisig transaction. Moreover, I am concerned that issuing a transaction to address starting with '3' on Bitcoin network will result in a loss of funds and creating serious burden for users as they may have to extract their private keys in effort to convert them between networks (if that is even feasible).

I perfectly realize the scale of the network and that deploying that kind of change is virtually impossible without breaking multisig support, hence I would like to propose the following: We introduce support for A and B cases, where A is version '3' and B will be another version, such as '4'. We roll out this change in the next release. We continue issuing '3' in RPC functions. We wait for a year or so to disable version '3' or can even leave it there. As long as we support '4' and documentation states that clearly, then I don't see any problems with use doing this in a staged manner.

@wtogami if you are willing to supervise, I can work on this with my team, submit the necessary changes and supervise the transition over the coming year.

@aspect aspect added the enhancement label Nov 5, 2014

@yk-zhang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@yk-zhang

yk-zhang Nov 9, 2014

I think you can contact Quickwallet (https://twitter.com/quickwalletcom), they are huobi store's website, is to use Multisig addresses versions are '3'.

yk-zhang commented Nov 9, 2014

I think you can contact Quickwallet (https://twitter.com/quickwalletcom), they are huobi store's website, is to use Multisig addresses versions are '3'.

@coblee

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coblee

coblee Nov 13, 2014

Member

I think changing Litecoin multisig prefix is a good idea. If you can write up a detailed proposal, that would be helpful.

Member

coblee commented Nov 13, 2014

I think changing Litecoin multisig prefix is a good idea. If you can write up a detailed proposal, that would be helpful.

@aspect

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aspect

aspect Nov 13, 2014

I am in the process of doing that. Just being stalled by a release we are making this week. I should have that out for comment in the next couple of days.

aspect commented Nov 13, 2014

I am in the process of doing that. Just being stalled by a release we are making this week. I should have that out for comment in the next couple of days.

@cqtenq

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cqtenq

cqtenq Nov 25, 2014

Hi Litecoin,
today , feathercoin had the new multisign address, prefix f. you can choice prefix m.
https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/8113-dev-multisignature-wallet-implementation-and-issues/

cqtenq commented Nov 25, 2014

Hi Litecoin,
today , feathercoin had the new multisign address, prefix f. you can choice prefix m.
https://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php?/topic/8113-dev-multisignature-wallet-implementation-and-issues/

@aspect

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aspect

aspect Nov 25, 2014

Coincidentally, address version which results in the letter 'M' is what is currently being proposed. We are currently examining this to ensure that existing 3rd party clients handle the change without any adverse effects.

aspect commented Nov 25, 2014

Coincidentally, address version which results in the letter 'M' is what is currently being proposed. We are currently examining this to ensure that existing 3rd party clients handle the change without any adverse effects.

@franko-org

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@franko-org

franko-org Jun 14, 2015

Why not accept both? That way it doesn't cause any problems.

Why not accept both? That way it doesn't cause any problems.

@losh11

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@losh11

losh11 Jun 14, 2015

Member

@franko-org wouldn't that still hold the confusion?

Member

losh11 commented Jun 14, 2015

@franko-org wouldn't that still hold the confusion?

@losh11

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@losh11

losh11 Jul 13, 2015

Member

@aspect any new work done on your BIP (or shall I say 'LIP')?
A lot of people have recently been reporting of an exchange accidentally sending to Bitcoin multisig addresses...

Member

losh11 commented Jul 13, 2015

@aspect any new work done on your BIP (or shall I say 'LIP')?
A lot of people have recently been reporting of an exchange accidentally sending to Bitcoin multisig addresses...

@keivibi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@keivibi

keivibi Jul 21, 2015

Hi all,
Since multisig use with each day is becoming more and more common. More and More users are finding themselves sending LTC to bitcoin multisig address by mistake. This issue is due to the fact that the litecoin core does not differentiate a BTC multisig address from LTC multisig address.

Until a final working solution to this issue is found I propose the following:
*Update the litecoin client with a warning that when a multisig address is entered the client will display a message saying:
"Warning! Multisig address added. Please DOUBLE CHECK that this is a Litecoin multisignature address and not Bitcoin".

This can be done NOW, and we don't have to wait for a hard fork to at least address this issue some how.

More info on the below threads:
Topic: Sent litecoin to bitcoin address by mistake. Can you help?
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=26513.0

Topic: Sent litecoins to bitcoin multisig address. Any way to recover them?
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=26230.0

keivibi commented Jul 21, 2015

Hi all,
Since multisig use with each day is becoming more and more common. More and More users are finding themselves sending LTC to bitcoin multisig address by mistake. This issue is due to the fact that the litecoin core does not differentiate a BTC multisig address from LTC multisig address.

Until a final working solution to this issue is found I propose the following:
*Update the litecoin client with a warning that when a multisig address is entered the client will display a message saying:
"Warning! Multisig address added. Please DOUBLE CHECK that this is a Litecoin multisignature address and not Bitcoin".

This can be done NOW, and we don't have to wait for a hard fork to at least address this issue some how.

More info on the below threads:
Topic: Sent litecoin to bitcoin address by mistake. Can you help?
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=26513.0

Topic: Sent litecoins to bitcoin multisig address. Any way to recover them?
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=26230.0

@keivibi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@keivibi

keivibi Jul 21, 2015

@aspect

Coincidentally, address version which results in the letter 'M' is what is currently being proposed. We are currently examining this to ensure that existing 3rd party clients handle the change without any adverse effects.

Can you please give a link with more information about this? Thanks.

keivibi commented Jul 21, 2015

@aspect

Coincidentally, address version which results in the letter 'M' is what is currently being proposed. We are currently examining this to ensure that existing 3rd party clients handle the change without any adverse effects.

Can you please give a link with more information about this? Thanks.

@TheRealMage

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheRealMage

TheRealMage Nov 8, 2015

@aspect @wtogami @coblee @thrasher-

Someone on reddit burned some coins by mistake by sending them to a BTC multi sig address, and was talking to @losh11 about this when he pointed me to this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/3rypng/why_i_sold_my_ltc_recently_community_looking_to/

Was a proposal ever created for this issue?

If this does require a hard fork, I am more than happy to ensure that it receives the attention it needs in order for everyone to update appropriately. The last soft fork went off very well, and I feel we can do this without serious issues. Please advise, thank you.

@aspect @wtogami @coblee @thrasher-

Someone on reddit burned some coins by mistake by sending them to a BTC multi sig address, and was talking to @losh11 about this when he pointed me to this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/3rypng/why_i_sold_my_ltc_recently_community_looking_to/

Was a proposal ever created for this issue?

If this does require a hard fork, I am more than happy to ensure that it receives the attention it needs in order for everyone to update appropriately. The last soft fork went off very well, and I feel we can do this without serious issues. Please advise, thank you.

@losh11

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@losh11

losh11 Nov 12, 2015

Member

Makes sense. Might take a while though.

On Thursday, 12 November 2015, Warren Togami notifications@github.com
wrote:

I think the time to do this would be:

  • After the rebase to 0.12, which is important to go smoothly for
    other security/robustness reasons to make the existing network more
    resistant to attack than it is now.
  • Probably after a hardfork decision is made for Bitcoin, which may
    fix several major long-standing issues including SIGOPS counting, UTXO
    cost, tx malleability and also allow for safer block size increase. If we
    do a Litecoin hardfork, might as well wait for an upcoming hardfork that
    solves several problems at once.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#179 (comment)
.

Member

losh11 commented Nov 12, 2015

Makes sense. Might take a while though.

On Thursday, 12 November 2015, Warren Togami notifications@github.com
wrote:

I think the time to do this would be:

  • After the rebase to 0.12, which is important to go smoothly for
    other security/robustness reasons to make the existing network more
    resistant to attack than it is now.
  • Probably after a hardfork decision is made for Bitcoin, which may
    fix several major long-standing issues including SIGOPS counting, UTXO
    cost, tx malleability and also allow for safer block size increase. If we
    do a Litecoin hardfork, might as well wait for an upcoming hardfork that
    solves several problems at once.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#179 (comment)
.

@thrasher-

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thrasher-

thrasher- Nov 13, 2015

Member

+1 for Warren's suggestion, can implement many other hardfork changes during a single hardfork event. That way, it eliminates having to burden all users multiple times forcing them to update (usually takes a while before the majority upgrades to the latest version).

Member

thrasher- commented Nov 13, 2015

+1 for Warren's suggestion, can implement many other hardfork changes during a single hardfork event. That way, it eliminates having to burden all users multiple times forcing them to update (usually takes a while before the majority upgrades to the latest version).

@TheRealMage

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheRealMage

TheRealMage Nov 13, 2015

@wtogami @thrasher- Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that if we need to hardfork for several reasons we should wait to lump them all at once. However that is a long list of issues to address, and as far as I know there are no concrete solutions to any of those (well except SIGOPS counting, not sure what that is. And I assume UTXO cost is the fee structure or is this incorrect?).

@wtogami I would like to mention something in the development and technical discussions section. Would you like to do this or would you like me to do so?

@wtogami @thrasher- Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that if we need to hardfork for several reasons we should wait to lump them all at once. However that is a long list of issues to address, and as far as I know there are no concrete solutions to any of those (well except SIGOPS counting, not sure what that is. And I assume UTXO cost is the fee structure or is this incorrect?).

@wtogami I would like to mention something in the development and technical discussions section. Would you like to do this or would you like me to do so?

@Hothza

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Hothza

Hothza Nov 24, 2015

Hi,
what about testnet (p2pkh: 0x6F, p2sh: 0xC4) - are this values will be also changed?

Hothza commented Nov 24, 2015

Hi,
what about testnet (p2pkh: 0x6F, p2sh: 0xC4) - are this values will be also changed?

@losh11

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@losh11

losh11 Nov 1, 2016

Member

@thrasher- @wangxinxi is this being addressed in 0.13.1?

Member

losh11 commented Nov 1, 2016

@thrasher- @wangxinxi is this being addressed in 0.13.1?

@coblee

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coblee

coblee Nov 4, 2016

Member

We are going to change the p2sh (i.e. multisig) addresses in Litecoin to start with N. But we will still continue to support addresses that start with 3.

Member

coblee commented Nov 4, 2016

We are going to change the p2sh (i.e. multisig) addresses in Litecoin to start with N. But we will still continue to support addresses that start with 3.

@coblee

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coblee

coblee Nov 6, 2016

Member

Actually, we are leaning towards supporting version 50 (first letter 'M'). M for multisig.

Member

coblee commented Nov 6, 2016

Actually, we are leaning towards supporting version 50 (first letter 'M'). M for multisig.

@losh11

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@losh11

losh11 Nov 6, 2016

Member

Will multisig prefix '3' addresses eventually be depreciated, or will both be supported. So something like Litecoin Core P2SH address generation favouring the prefix 'M'?

Member

losh11 commented Nov 6, 2016

Will multisig prefix '3' addresses eventually be depreciated, or will both be supported. So something like Litecoin Core P2SH address generation favouring the prefix 'M'?

@shaolinfry shaolinfry added this to the 0.13.3 milestone Jan 8, 2017

@losh11

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@losh11

losh11 Jan 9, 2017

Member

@shaolinfry I believe this was addressed in c0d7b3b?

Member

losh11 commented Jan 9, 2017

@shaolinfry I believe this was addressed in c0d7b3b?

@shaolinfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@shaolinfry

shaolinfry Jan 9, 2017

Member

@losh11 not merged. There will be a new PR by @wangxinxi

Member

shaolinfry commented Jan 9, 2017

@losh11 not merged. There will be a new PR by @wangxinxi

@shaolinfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@shaolinfry

shaolinfry Jan 29, 2017

Member

Added in #279

Member

shaolinfry commented Jan 29, 2017

Added in #279

@shaolinfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@shaolinfry

shaolinfry Jan 30, 2017

Member

This will be part of 0.13.3

Member

shaolinfry commented Jan 30, 2017

This will be part of 0.13.3

@shaolinfry shaolinfry closed this Jan 30, 2017

@lacksfish lacksfish referenced this issue in Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc Dec 7, 2017

Closed

Change address version #35

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment