BIP for standard multi-signature P2SH addresses
7 messages, 11 Mar 2015. Started by Thomas Kerin.
Greg Maxwell (2), Pindar Wong (2), Thomas Kerin, Mike Hearn, devrandom
Hi all,
I just created a PR on bitcoin/bips for a proposed standard for creating standard multisignature P2SH addresses given m, and a set of public keys.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/146
I used BIP0090 as a place-holder, but I would like to request a BIP number for this now.
All the best,
- -- Thomas Kerin - -------------------------
My PGP key can be found here <http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3F0D2F83A2966155>
bitcoinj also uses this convention.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io> wrote:
Quoted text (2 lines)
> I used BIP0090 as a place-holder, but I would like to request a BIP number > for this now.
We have had repeated problems in the past with people working on and circulating prior draft proposals squatting on each others numbers, and each demanding access to the same numbers. As a matter of procedure I will not assign squatted numbers, but also discussion should come in advance of number assignment; general subject here seems reasonable but many proposals are withdrawn by the party tendering them after further discussion shows the effort to be without public interest or actually subsumed by other functionality. :)
Proposals should not be called "BIP[nn]" until they're actually a BIP. Feel free to call it bip-kerin-multisignature or any other placeholder name that won't be confused with a finished BIP for drafting.
If there is any public documentation on the process which caused you specific confusion, please feel free to point me at it and I'll be sure to fix it! Sorry for any confusion there.
ACK. CryptoCorp uses this method for our external signer service.
On 2015-03-11 04:45 AM, Thomas Kerin wrote:
Quoted text (30 lines)
> > Hi all, > > I just created a PR on bitcoin/bips for a proposed standard for creating > standard multisignature P2SH addresses given m, and a set of public keys. > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/146 > > I used BIP0090 as a place-holder, but I would like to request a BIP > number for this now. > > All the best, > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored > by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all > things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to > news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the > conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
Hi,
Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period?
I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) <http://www.ietf.org> has the concept of 'Internet Drafts" (ID) <http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt> and this looks like it has worked for them so far.
m2c.
p.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (38 lines)
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io> wrote: > > I used BIP0090 as a place-holder, but I would like to request a BIP > number > > for this now. > > We have had repeated problems in the past with people working on and > circulating prior draft proposals squatting on each others numbers, > and each demanding access to the same numbers. As a matter of > procedure I will not assign squatted numbers, but also discussion > should come in advance of number assignment; general subject here > seems reasonable but many proposals are withdrawn by the party > tendering them after further discussion shows the effort to be without > public interest or actually subsumed by other functionality. :) > > Proposals should not be called "BIP[nn]" until they're actually a BIP. > Feel free to call it bip-kerin-multisignature or any other > placeholder name that won't be confused with a finished BIP for > drafting. > > If there is any public documentation on the process which caused you > specific confusion, please feel free to point me at it and I'll be > sure to fix it! Sorry for any confusion there. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored > by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for > all > things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs > to > news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the > conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (6 lines)
> Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a > 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period? > > I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has the > concept of 'Internet Drafts" (ID) and this looks like it has worked for them > so far.
Thats more or less what posting to the list is supposed to be. Creating a draft document requires no approval, beyond filling out the right form.
Perhaps calling out that as a distinct step would be better, indeed.
Understood... perhaps just add something like:
'After copy-editing and acceptance,* a BIP number is assigned* and it will be published here.'?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals
p.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (16 lines)
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail•com> > wrote: > > Perhaps at some point consider introducing something akin to a > > 'Bitcoin-Draft' (BD) status with some autoexpiry period? > > > > I understand that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has the > > concept of 'Internet Drafts" (ID) and this looks like it has worked for > them > > so far. > > Thats more or less what posting to the list is supposed to be. > Creating a draft document requires no approval, beyond filling out the > right form. > > Perhaps calling out that as a distinct step would be better, indeed. >