bitcoin
Specify BIP-fidelity-bonds
This adds a BIP for a standard for storing fidelity bonds in BIP39 seed phrases.
Preferably the BIP number will be a two-digit number to match the BIP44, BIP49, BIP84, BIP86 family of BIPs. Alternatively if a three-digit number is the only way then I suggest BIP-842 because it matches the bip32 derivation path m / 84' / 0' / 0' / 2 / index
This doesn't actually use BIP39 -- I think it would be clearer and more general to just say "storing fidelity bonds in BIP32 hierarchical trees" and leave the encoding of the master seed out of scope.
Good thinking. I checked the other similar BIPs and I see they don't mention BIP39 either.
Needs a section to address backward compatibility (even if it simply explains why it's not applicable)
@chris-belcher are you still working on this?
If I am not mistaken, last activity from Chris regarding this was ~2 years ago. @luke-jr Is a section about backward compatibility all that is needed to progress this further?
If I am not mistaken, last activity from Chris regarding this was ~2 years ago. @luke-jr Is a section about backward compatibility all that is needed to progress this further?
@theborakompanioni: My understanding is that Chris unfortunately cannot work due to health reasons at this time. Would you be interested in working on addressing the open review comments?
If I am not mistaken, last activity from Chris regarding this was ~2 years ago. @luke-jr Is a section about backward compatibility all that is needed to progress this further?
@theborakompanioni: My understanding is that Chris unfortunately cannot work due to health reasons at this time. Would you be interested in working on addressing the open review comments?
Yes, if it is only these small higher level changes, I am interested. Would you possibly be so kind as to let me know how to proceed? I have read section "Transferring BIP Ownership" in BIP-02 and formally propose to the original author @chris-belcher and the current BIP editors (representative @murchandamus) to address the open review comments. Should a new PR be created and this one closed subsequently? Thank you :pray:
Yes, if it is only these small higher level changes, I am interested.
@theborakompanioni: Great, glad to hear that. Given the circumstances, I unfortunately don’t anticipate to hear from @chris-belcher, but let’s give him a week as a "reasonable amount of time" to respond.
It will probably be the easiest to open a new PR that supersedes this one. I would suggest that you start with the commits in this branch and then append your own commits, that would make it the easiest for any interested parties to keep track of the amendment’s since Chris’s draft. You could open it already, while we are waiting for Chris’s response, though.
Yes, if it is only these small higher level changes, I am interested.
@theborakompanioni: Great, glad to hear that. Given the circumstances, I unfortunately don’t anticipate to hear from @chris-belcher, but let’s give him a week as a "reasonable amount of time" to respond.
:+1:
It will probably be the easiest to open a new PR that supersedes this one. I would suggest that you start with the commits in this branch and then append your own commits, that would make it the easiest for any interested parties to keep track of the amendment’s since Chris’s draft.
Thank you, will do! :+1:
You could open it already, while we are waiting for Chris’s response, though.
I will respect the one week waiting period and start working once it has been approved and acknowledged. :pray:
Let’s call this BIP-46.
Perfect.