I don't quite understand your NACK.
The following are measures you say we should take as best practices, which I
believe are all implemented:
>A) We should accept that users must to backup their multisig account maps
>(descriptor with only xpubs) along with their cosigner key material to be abl
@Russell I think there were sound arguments against Satoshi's statement
made in that very thread. Especially that software can be written to warn
the user about edge cases.
If a person waited for the standard 6 blocks before accepting a transaction
as confirmed, there should be no significantly li
> more than sufficient support for LOT=True to proceed safely
This seems to contradict what you said about "there was never any consensus
reached on the LOT parameter". Can you clarify?
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:13 AM BitcoinMechanic via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Though I am ACK on that we need to solve the problem of xpub privacy and
reuse, I'm NACK on this solution. It is currently too complex and doesn't
really solve the problem.
I believe that the ultimate solution will be some form of multi-round
cryptographic commitment scheme, and as musig threshold
Hello Salvatore,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:03 AM Salvatore Ingala
wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> First of all, thank you for the impressive work on leading the
> standardization efforts!
>
> I believe one ought to more clearly distinguish the "Signer" (as in: one
> of the parties in the multisig setup),
Hi Hugo,
First of all, thank you for the impressive work on leading the
standardization efforts!
I believe one ought to more clearly distinguish the "Signer" (as in: one of
the parties in the multisig setup), from the "*Signing device*" (which is
likely a hardware wallet). BSMS defines a "Signer"
