-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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
Add Silent Payment Send Optionality as new feature #633
Comments
I am eager to get SP support into SeedSigner. See my initial work here: https://x.com/KeithMukai/status/1790913869453418718 My understanding is that we'd need an updated psbt spec to be completed before we could create a full integration on our end. Josie will be presenting at my local Bitdevs meetup tonight so I'll make sure I get more details. |
My tentative answer is that it depends on what use cases emerge and what other tools support. For example, "accounts" in derivation paths has largely fallen out of favor and most wallets don't even expose that functionality. So the default SeedSigner user flow also completely ignores accounts (however, since some account usage DOES exist, users can always specify a full custom derivation path). If Labels end up being similarly fringe / unused, then so be it. I'm not familiar with the Contacts concept. For now the simplest, most basic SP implementation seems a good target for a first release. |
I agree. Pumped you and Josie are seeing tonight, should be positive. LFG!! |
Hi @kdmukai , I have proved your code and I could to verify that sp address Josie's branch generates (bitcoin/bitcoin#28453) match with yours, same as with silentium wallet that you verified (https://x.com/KeithMukai/status/1791134482130448480). Nice! I am researching about BIP 352 since a few weeks and maybe I could help you or collaborate. Tell us more about your meeting with Josie, I think he is implementing this on Core here: bitcoin-core/secp256k1#1519 Regards! |
It sounds like the updated psbt spec will take another couple months. Not surprising. So that's still a blocker for adding full support on the SeedSigner side. The most interesting thing I learned was about the Labels. The spec describes them as an integer that you would increment for each new use (e.g. each tenant in your apartment building would get a different integer Label so you can keep track of who's paid you their monthly rent). But Josie said that you can use anything you want as a Label, so long as YOU know what scheme you used and are able to reproduce it. One example was if you're a big exchange, you could use each customer's unique customer_id. The reason the spec only describes an incrementing int is that any wallet can trivially pre-compute the first, say, 100k Labels and include them in the scan when restoring a SP wallet. But if you use your own Label scheme, the onus is on you to set up your own system to scan for those Labels and find your SP utxos. I asked if the bip could be clarified to include that additional info about Label flexibility and he agreed that it should be added. |
Correct, Labels and Contacts for BOLT 12 is such a game changer. Especially for exchanges like you've said. Cos now even exchanges could publish their scan key, so when we're probably sending from seedsigner to say, a coinbase or whatever, is coinbase signs that scan public key, Seedsigner could render the exchange's name, in this case coinbase and the normie user can verify that the address does belong to coinbase. |
Given the open-source nature of this project, and keeping with the cypher punk ethos, it's only prudent that Seed Signer had silent payment support as a hardware wallet.
BIP 352(Silent Payment) send option so far is only implemented by BITBOX-02 when it comes to HWWs. I believe that since this BIP has been merged into core, it only makes sense that Seed Signer lead in proliferating SP usage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: