Discussion:
Proposal: bip32 version bytes for segwit scripts
(too old to reply)
Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-05 10:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
BIP32 extended public/private keys have version bytes that result in the
user visible xpub/xprv prefix. The BIP's recommendation is to use
different version bytes for other networks (such as tpub/tprv for testnet)

I would like to use additional version bytes to indicate the type of
output script used with the public keys.

I believe the change should be user visible, because users are exposed
to master public keys. I propose the following prefixes:

========== =========== ===================================
Version Prefix Description
========== =========== ===================================
0x0488ade4 xprv P2PKH or P2SH
0x0488b21e xpub P2PKH or P2SH
0x049d7878 yprv (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
0x049d7cb2 ypub (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
0x04b2430c zprv P2WPKH or P2WSH
0x04b24746 zpub P2WPKH or P2WSH
========== =========== ===================================
(source: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html)

I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for
keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used.
However, the very existence of version bytes, and the fact that they are
used to signal whether keys will be used on testnet or mainnet goes
against that argument.

If we do not signal the script type in the version bytes, I believe
wallet developers are going to use dirtier tricks, such as the bip32
child number field in combination with bip43/bip44/bip49.


Thomas
Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-05 15:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
========== =========== ===================================
Version Prefix Description
========== =========== ===================================
0x0488ade4 xprv P2PKH or P2SH
0x0488b21e xpub P2PKH or P2SH
0x049d7878 yprv (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
0x049d7cb2 ypub (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
0x04b2430c zprv P2WPKH or P2WSH
0x04b24746 zpub P2WPKH or P2WSH
========== =========== ===================================
(source: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html)
I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for
keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used.
I used this argument for mnemonic/seed, not xpub/xprv. I am fine with
this proposal of yours, so don't worry.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol "stick" Rusnak
CTO, SatoshiLabs
Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-05 17:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for
keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used.
However, the very existence of version bytes, and the fact that they are
used to signal whether keys will be used on testnet or mainnet goes
against that argument.
If we do not signal the script type in the version bytes, I believe
wallet developers are going to use dirtier tricks, such as the bip32
child number field in combination with bip43/bip44/bip49.
I think it makes more sense to use a child number field for this purpose.
It seems desirable to use the same seed for all different script formats...

As you note, xpub\xprv are already being used for both P2PKH and P2SH. It
really doesn't make sense to differentiate segwit specifically.

Luke
Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-05 18:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
It seems desirable to use the same seed for all different script formats...
That does not seem desirable to everybody.

If you want to guarantee that users will be able to recover all their
funds from their mnemonic seed (and that is what they expect), then
wallets must implement all script formats, even the ones that are
deprecated. In addition, the list of script formats that must be
supported is not defined in advance, but it keeps growing. This makes
wallet implementation increasingly difficult. In the long run, seed
portability is guaranteed to fail in such a system.
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
As you note, xpub\xprv are already being used for both P2PKH and P2SH. It
really doesn't make sense to differentiate segwit specifically.
That's not a reason. The fact that xpub/xprv can be used for both P2PKH
and P2SH has already resulted in users receiving coins on addresses they
do not control.
Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-06 17:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
I think it makes more sense to use a child number field for this purpose.
It seems desirable to use the same seed for all different script formats...
If I were designing the serialization format today, I would drop the
fingerprint and expand child number to full BIP32 path. Good thing is
that we already have depth, so we know how long the BIP32 path would be.

So I suggest the following:

4 byte: version bytes
1 byte: depth
depth * 4 bytes: bip32 path
32 bytes
33 bytes
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol "stick" Rusnak
CTO, SatoshiLabs
Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-05 22:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Generally I like the idea, but maybe we should come up with a
(Bech32-based?) new standard that also includes the key birthdate (aka
"wallet birthdate").

Also I heard Core will mix addresses of all types on the same HD chain.
What prefix would it pick? "*pub"?
Post by Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
BIP32 extended public/private keys have version bytes that result in the
user visible xpub/xprv prefix. The BIP's recommendation is to use
different version bytes for other networks (such as tpub/tprv for testnet)
I would like to use additional version bytes to indicate the type of
output script used with the public keys.
I believe the change should be user visible, because users are exposed
========== =========== ===================================
Version Prefix Description
========== =========== ===================================
0x0488ade4 xprv P2PKH or P2SH
0x0488b21e xpub P2PKH or P2SH
0x049d7878 yprv (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
0x049d7cb2 ypub (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
0x04b2430c zprv P2WPKH or P2WSH
0x04b24746 zpub P2WPKH or P2WSH
========== =========== ===================================
(source: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html)
I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for
keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used.
However, the very existence of version bytes, and the fact that they are
used to signal whether keys will be used on testnet or mainnet goes
against that argument.
If we do not signal the script type in the version bytes, I believe
wallet developers are going to use dirtier tricks, such as the bip32
child number field in combination with bip43/bip44/bip49.
Kabuto Samourai via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-05 19:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We support a change to the version bits of the HD serialization that will
inform the receiving utility of the exact derivation method used for the
pubkeys. Third-parties handling xpubs must not require additional
information from the user about the derivation path or serialization format
of the addresses under that xpub. When you have to ask, "Is this a SegWit
xpub?" then you've already lost.

Avoiding a total UX nightmare is in everyone's interests.

I think Luke and Thomas may be talking past one another. When exporting a
root master HD seed, encoding the {x,y,z}{pub,prv} distinctions makes no
sense, as the root seed should derive all paths for all coins. Wallets may
need additional code to discover which paths have been used when importing
a root seed. But when exporting / importing an account-level seed for
watch-only and receive address generation, changing the serialization
version bytes is appropriate and (in our view) essential to avoid loss of
funds.

The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub
both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes to
eliminate the ambiguity?


On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
It seems desirable to use the same seed for all different script
formats...
That does not seem desirable to everybody.
If you want to guarantee that users will be able to recover all their
funds from their mnemonic seed (and that is what they expect), then
wallets must implement all script formats, even the ones that are
deprecated. In addition, the list of script formats that must be
supported is not defined in advance, but it keeps growing. This makes
wallet implementation increasingly difficult. In the long run, seed
portability is guaranteed to fail in such a system.
Post by Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
As you note, xpub\xprv are already being used for both P2PKH and P2SH. It
really doesn't make sense to differentiate segwit specifically.
That's not a reason. The fact that xpub/xprv can be used for both P2PKH
and P2SH has already resulted in users receiving coins on addresses they
do not control.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
-Kabuto

PGP Fingerprint: 1A83 4A96 EDE7 E286 2C5A B065 320F B934 A79B 6A99
Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-06 09:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kabuto Samourai via bitcoin-dev
The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub
both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes to
eliminate the ambiguity?
I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.
However, fixing that now might be difficult.

My "xyz" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy
to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.
However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to
add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently
allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than
ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.

In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess
not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is
useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will
never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a
P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as
strong.
Kabuto Samourai via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-06 13:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that
Let's move forward with the simplest solution that solves the problem and
achieves consensus! Version bytes {x,y,z} fits the bill.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <
Post by Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev
Post by Kabuto Samourai via bitcoin-dev
The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub
both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes
to
Post by Kabuto Samourai via bitcoin-dev
eliminate the ambiguity?
I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.
However, fixing that now might be difficult.
My "xyz" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy
to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.
However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to
add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently
allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than
ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.
In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess
not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is
useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will
never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a
P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as
strong.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
-Kabuto

PGP Fingerprint: 1A83 4A96 EDE7 E286 2C5A B065 320F B934 A79B 6A99
Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
2017-09-07 19:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kabuto Samourai via bitcoin-dev
I think Luke and Thomas may be talking past one another. When exporting a
root master HD seed, encoding the {x,y,z}{pub,prv} distinctions makes no
sense, as the root seed should derive all paths for all coins. Wallets may
need additional code to discover which paths have been used when importing
a root seed. But when exporting / importing an account-level seed for
watch-only and receive address generation, changing the serialization
version bytes is appropriate and (in our view) essential to avoid loss of
funds.
In that case, I think we should go back to the proposal I started with in
March...

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013726.html

This handles not only simple HD seeds, but also multisig HD and such.

Luke

Loading...