diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | README.mediawiki | 10 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0002.mediawiki | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0010.mediawiki | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0021.mediawiki | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0038.mediawiki | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0043.mediawiki | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0044.mediawiki | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0049.mediawiki | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0084.mediawiki | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0327.mediawiki | 8 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0380.mediawiki | 4 |
11 files changed, 21 insertions, 22 deletions
diff --git a/README.mediawiki b/README.mediawiki index 43e60a4..2355dba 100644 --- a/README.mediawiki +++ b/README.mediawiki @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] mailing list (do <em>not</em> assign a number - read <a href="bip-0002.mediawiki">BIP 2</a> for the full process). After discussion, please open a PR. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here. +People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev bitcoindev@googlegroups.com] mailing list (do <em>not</em> assign a number - read <a href="bip-0002.mediawiki">BIP 2</a> for the full process). After discussion, please open a PR. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here. We are fairly liberal with approving BIPs, and try not to be too involved in decision making on behalf of the community. The exception is in very rare cases of dispute resolution when a decision is contentious and cannot be agreed upon. In those cases, the conservative option will always be preferred. @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th | Applications | Purpose Field for Deterministic Wallets | Marek Palatinus, Pavol Rusnak -| Informational +| Standard | Final |- style="background-color: #ffffcf" | [[bip-0044.mediawiki|44]] @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th | Multi-Account Hierarchy for Deterministic Wallets | Marek Palatinus, Pavol Rusnak | Standard -| Proposed +| Final |- style="background-color: #ffffcf" | [[bip-0045.mediawiki|45]] | Applications @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th | Applications | Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts | Daniel Weigl -| Informational +| Standard | Final |- style="background-color: #cfffcf" | [[bip-0050.mediawiki|50]] @@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th | Applications | Derivation scheme for P2WPKH based accounts | Pavol Rusnak -| Informational +| Standard | Final |- | [[bip-0085.mediawiki|85]] diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index af8bb30..71d3812 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -32,13 +32,13 @@ The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have Small enhancements or patches to a particular piece of software often don't require standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BIP and should be injected into the relevant project-specific development workflow with a patch submission to the applicable issue tracker. Additionally, many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bitcoin that have been rejected for various reasons. The first step should be to search past discussions to see if an idea has been considered before, and if so, what issues arose in its progression. -After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Bitcoin development mailing list]. +After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev Bitcoin development mailing list]. Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Asking the Bitcoin community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Bitcoin is used. -Once the champion has asked the Bitcoin community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BIP should be presented to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Bitcoin development mailing list]. +Once the champion has asked the Bitcoin community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BIP should be presented to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev Bitcoin development mailing list]. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft BIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. Following a discussion, the proposal should be submitted to the [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips BIPs git repository] as a pull request. This draft must be written in BIP style as described below, and named with an alias such as "bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins" until an editor has assigned it a BIP number (authors MUST NOT self-assign BIP numbers). @@ -409,7 +409,6 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? * Non-image auxiliary files are permitted in the bip-XXXX subdirectory. * Email addresses are now required for authors. * The Post-History header may be provided as a link instead of a simple date. -* Markdown format is no longer permitted for BIPs. * The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions. ==See Also== diff --git a/bip-0010.mediawiki b/bip-0010.mediawiki index 42071f3..289e3b0 100644 --- a/bip-0010.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0010.mediawiki @@ -93,10 +93,10 @@ The following is an example TxDP from Armory, produced while running on the test In this transaction, there are two inputs, one of 150 BTC and the other of 12 BTC. This transaction combines 162 BTC to create two outputs, one of 160 BTC, one 1.9995 BTC, and a tx fee of 0.0005. In this TxDP, both inputs have been signed, and thus could broadcast immediately. -The style of communication is taken directly from PGP/GPG, which uses blocks of ASCII like this to communicate encrypted messages and signatures. This serialization is compact, and will be interpretted the same in all character encodings. It can be copied inline into an email, or saved in a text file. The advantage over the analogous PGP encoding is that there are some human readable elements to it, for users that wish to examine the TxDP packet manually, instead of requiring a program to parse the core elements of the TxDP. +The style of communication is taken directly from PGP/GPG, which uses blocks of ASCII like this to communicate encrypted messages and signatures. This serialization is compact, and will be interpreted the same in all character encodings. It can be copied inline into an email, or saved in a text file. The advantage over the analogous PGP encoding is that there are some human readable elements to it, for users that wish to examine the TxDP packet manually, instead of requiring a program to parse the core elements of the TxDP. A party receiving this TxDP can simply add their signature to the appropriate _TXINPUT_ line. If that is the last signature required, they can broadcast it themselves. Any software that implements this standard should be able to combine multiple TxDPs into a single TxDP. However, even without the programmatic support, a user could manually combine them by copying the appropriate _TXSIGS_ lines between serializations, though it is not the recommended method for combining TxDPs. == Reference Implementation == -This proposal was implemented and tested in the older versions of ''Armory'' Bitcoin software for use in offline-wallet transaction signing (as a 1-of-1 transaction). Implementation can be found in https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/v0.91-beta/armoryengine/Transaction.py under the class PyTxDistProposal. However, as of verion 0.92 released in July 2014, Armory no longer uses this proposal for offline wallet transaction signing and has moved on to a new format. +This proposal was implemented and tested in the older versions of ''Armory'' Bitcoin software for use in offline-wallet transaction signing (as a 1-of-1 transaction). Implementation can be found in https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/v0.91-beta/armoryengine/Transaction.py under the class PyTxDistProposal. However, as of version 0.92 released in July 2014, Armory no longer uses this proposal for offline wallet transaction signing and has moved on to a new format. diff --git a/bip-0021.mediawiki b/bip-0021.mediawiki index 0fba9bc..cdc37ba 100644 --- a/bip-0021.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0021.mediawiki @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Elements of the query component may contain characters outside the valid range. === ABNF grammar === -(See also [[#Simpler syntax|a simpler representation of syntax]]) +(See also [[#simpler-syntax|a simpler representation of syntax]]) bitcoinurn = "bitcoin:" bitcoinaddress [ "?" bitcoinparams ] bitcoinaddress = *base58 diff --git a/bip-0038.mediawiki b/bip-0038.mediawiki index 511b55a..7f99b1a 100644 --- a/bip-0038.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0038.mediawiki @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ To recalculate the address: # Derive ''passfactor'' using scrypt with ''ownerentropy'' and the user's passphrase and use it to recompute ''passpoint'' # Derive decryption key for ''pointb'' using scrypt with ''passpoint'', ''addresshash'', and ''ownerentropy'' # Decrypt ''encryptedpointb'' to yield ''pointb'' -# ECMultiply ''pointb'' by ''passfactor''. Use the resulting EC point as a public key and hash it into ''address'' using either compressed or uncompressed public key methodology as specifid in ''flagbyte''. +# ECMultiply ''pointb'' by ''passfactor''. Use the resulting EC point as a public key and hash it into ''address'' using either compressed or uncompressed public key methodology as specified in ''flagbyte''. =====Decryption===== # Collect encrypted private key and passphrase from user. diff --git a/bip-0043.mediawiki b/bip-0043.mediawiki index 32e02b1..f07c94a 100644 --- a/bip-0043.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0043.mediawiki @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0043 Status: Final - Type: Informational + Type: Standards Track Created: 2014-04-24 </pre> diff --git a/bip-0044.mediawiki b/bip-0044.mediawiki index 4ddd56b..5db540c 100644 --- a/bip-0044.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0044.mediawiki @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com> Comments-Summary: Mixed review (one person) Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0044 - Status: Proposed + Status: Final Type: Standards Track Created: 2014-04-24 </pre> diff --git a/bip-0049.mediawiki b/bip-0049.mediawiki index 7d8d2c7..a13b437 100644 --- a/bip-0049.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0049.mediawiki @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0049 Status: Final - Type: Informational + Type: Standards Track Created: 2016-05-19 License: PD </pre> diff --git a/bip-0084.mediawiki b/bip-0084.mediawiki index 7f20217..e1e458c 100644 --- a/bip-0084.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0084.mediawiki @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Comments-Summary: No comments yet. Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0084 Status: Final - Type: Informational + Type: Standards Track Created: 2017-12-28 License: CC0-1.0 </pre> diff --git a/bip-0327.mediawiki b/bip-0327.mediawiki index 07b40f5..b5600ab 100644 --- a/bip-0327.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0327.mediawiki @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ This is by design: All algorithms in this proposal handle multiple signers who ( and applications are not required to check for duplicate individual public keys. In fact, applications are recommended to omit checks for duplicate individual public keys in order to simplify error handling. Moreover, it is often impossible to tell at key aggregation which signer is to blame for the duplicate, i.e., which signer came up with an individual public key honestly and which disruptive signer copied it. -In contrast, MuSig2 is designed to identify disruptive signers at signing time (see [[#identifiying-disruptive-signers|Identifiying Disruptive Signers]]). +In contrast, MuSig2 is designed to identify disruptive signers at signing time (see [[#identifying-disruptive-signers|Identifying Disruptive Signers]]). While the algorithms in this proposal are able to handle duplicate individual public keys, there are scenarios where applications may choose to abort when encountering duplicates. For example, we can imagine a scenario where a single entity creates a MuSig2 setup with multiple signing devices. @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ The bit can be obtained with ''GetPlainPubkey(keyagg_ctx)[0] & 1''. The following specification of the algorithms has been written with a focus on clarity. As a result, the specified algorithms are not always optimal in terms of computation and space. -In particular, some values are recomputed but can be cached in actual implementations (see [[#signing-flow|Signing Flow]]). +In particular, some values are recomputed but can be cached in actual implementations (see [[#general-signing-flow|General Signing Flow]]). === Notation === @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ Algorithm ''ApplyTweak(keyagg_ctx, tweak, is_xonly_t)'': Algorithm ''NonceGen(sk, pk, aggpk, m, extra_in)'': * Inputs: ** The secret signing key ''sk'': a 32-byte array (optional argument) -** The individual public key ''pk'': a 33-byte array (see [[#modifications-to-nonce-generation|Modifications to Nonce Generation]] for the reason that this argument is mandatory) +** The individual public key ''pk'': a 33-byte array (see [[#signing-with-tweaked-individual-keys|Signing with Tweaked Individual Keys]] for the reason that this argument is mandatory) ** The x-only aggregate public key ''aggpk'': a 32-byte array (optional argument) ** The message ''m'': a byte array (optional argument)<ref name="mlen">In theory, the allowed message size is restricted because SHA256 accepts byte strings only up to size of 2^61-1 bytes (and because of the 8-byte length encoding).</ref> ** The auxiliary input ''extra_in'': a byte array with ''0 ≤ len(extra_in) ≤ 2<sup>32</sup>-1'' (optional argument) @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ Algorithm ''Sign(secnonce, sk, session_ctx)'': * Fail if ''pk ≠ secnonce[64:97]'' * Let ''a = GetSessionKeyAggCoeff(session_ctx, P)''; fail if that fails<ref>Failing ''Sign'' when ''GetSessionKeyAggCoeff(session_ctx, P)'' fails is not necessary for unforgeability. It merely indicates to the caller that the scheme is not being used correctly.</ref> * Let ''g = 1'' if ''has_even_y(Q)'', otherwise let ''g = -1 mod n'' -* <div id="Sign negation"></div>Let ''d = g⋅gacc⋅d' mod n'' (See [[negation-of-the-secret-key-when-signing|Negation Of The Secret Key When Signing]]) +* <div id="Sign negation"></div>Let ''d = g⋅gacc⋅d' mod n'' (See [[#negation-of-the-secret-key-when-signing|Negation Of The Secret Key When Signing]]) * Let ''s = (k<sub>1</sub> + b⋅k<sub>2</sub> + e⋅a⋅d) mod n'' * Let ''psig = bytes(32, s)'' * Let ''pubnonce = cbytes(k<sub>1</sub>'⋅G) || cbytes(k<sub>2</sub>'⋅G)'' diff --git a/bip-0380.mediawiki b/bip-0380.mediawiki index a5743d5..27b7908 100644 --- a/bip-0380.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0380.mediawiki @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license. Bitcoin wallets traditionally have stored a set of keys which are later serialized and mutated to produce the output scripts that the wallet watches and the addresses it provides to users. Typically backups have consisted of solely the private keys, nowadays primarily in the form of BIP 39 mnemonics. -However this backup solution is insuffient, especially since the introduction of Segregated Witness which added new output types. +However this backup solution is insufficient, especially since the introduction of Segregated Witness which added new output types. Given just the private keys, it is not possible for restored wallets to know which kinds of output scripts and addresses to produce. This has lead to incompatibilities between wallets when restoring a backup or exporting data for a watch only wallet. @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ Valid expressions: * Extended private key with hardened derivation and children: <tt>xprvA1RpRA33e1JQ7ifknakTFpgNXPmW2YvmhqLQYMmrj4xJXXWYpDPS3xz7iAxn8L39njGVyuoseXzU6rcxFLJ8HFsTjSyQbLYnMpCqE2VbFWc/3h/4h/5h/*h</tt> * Extended private key with key origin, hardened derivation and children: <tt>[deadbeef/0h/1h/2]xprvA1RpRA33e1JQ7ifknakTFpgNXPmW2YvmhqLQYMmrj4xJXXWYpDPS3xz7iAxn8L39njGVyuoseXzU6rcxFLJ8HFsTjSyQbLYnMpCqE2VbFWc/3h/4h/5h/*h</tt> -Invalid expressiosn: +Invalid expression: * Children indicator in key origin: <tt>[deadbeef/0h/0h/0h/*]0260b2003c386519fc9eadf2b5cf124dd8eea4c4e68d5e154050a9346ea98ce600</tt> * Trailing slash in key origin: <tt>[deadbeef/0h/0h/0h/]0260b2003c386519fc9eadf2b5cf124dd8eea4c4e68d5e154050a9346ea98ce600</tt> |