-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
QIP4: Multi-Signature Wallet #7
Conversation
5666001
to
d7f6851
Compare
Comments and discussion here. I support this QIP. |
Can a signatory of a multisig address be a multisig address? |
Yes a signatory of a multisig address can be a multisig address. |
As per the discussion, we will not be supporting feature where a multi sig address can be one of the signatory of another multi sig address, as this simply could be achieved by using the signatory of the parent multi sig address with proportional weightage. |
I think this is sensible as it avoids any complications with nesting. |
Does the shared key need to be a txhash? Surely any unique 32 bit number (or convertible seed phrase) would be preferable? In this way the first Whilst using the txhash is the simplest method it relies upon the other signatories knowing the precise details of the proposed transaction and choosing that transaction correctly. Furthermore, it forces the signatories to sign in a specific order. i.e. all signing transactions must reference the first for the process to work. With a unique random shared key that limitation is absent. |
|
So my understanding of this is that a new multisig_spend tx does not provide a shared key in which case the txhash will be used. If one is supplied then the state machine will use it instead of the txhash, correct? |
In case shared key is not provided in multi_sig_spend txn, then signatory needs to provide other details which is multi_sig_address, address to , amount. In case shared key is provided, then node will check if the shared key is a txn hash of a multi_sig_spend txn, in which multi_sig_address, address to and amount are mentioned. Further, it will check if the signer is the valid signatory of that multi sig address. |
What about the case where a multisig_spend tx occurs signing an existing shared key for a multisig address but providing different This should not be a valid multisig transaction and should be ignored? What if several further signatories also send the same tx such that the threshold is reached. Thoughts on this case? :-) |
The above case is not possible, because in the txn you either allowed to enter full details like to, amount, multi sig address, or you are allowed to enter only shared key.
When any signatory makes multi_sig_spend transaction without shared key, it will be considered, that each signatory is creating a new poll for which voting is needed by signing the shared key. Thsu if multiple signatories also send the same txn with full details, then they are creating multiple poll which needs to be supported by multi_sig_spend transaction that signs its corresponding shared key. |
Finally then, the case where user one shares a planned shared key to other signatories (two and three). Lets say due to network latency issues I.e. the transactions are not ordered as you might expect. Thoughts? |
Thats not possible as I already mentioned above, but let me give you more reasons for that.
|
If we are using a poll - response model then we can possibly extend the multisig specification to allow further functionality.. |
I support this QIP. |
No description provided.