Skip to content

388: fix incorrect example #1874

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
jonatack merged 1 commit into from
Jun 25, 2025
Merged

388: fix incorrect example #1874

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion bip-0388.mediawiki
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ Common single-signature account patterns:
Common multisig schemes:
* <tt>wsh(multi(2,@0/**,@1/**))</tt> - SegWit 2-of-2 multisig, keys in order.
* <tt>sh(sortedmulti(2,@0/**,@1/**,@2/**))</tt> - Legacy 2-of-3 multisig, sorted keys.
* <tt>tr(musig(@0/**,@1/**))</tt> - MuSig2 2-of-2 in the taproot keypath
* <tt>tr(musig(@0,@1)/**)</tt> - MuSig2 2-of-2 in the taproot keypath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jonatack jonatack Jun 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This does remove the contradiction between the example here being the same as the invalid policy example in line 313 below.

Is there further explanation somewhere about the statement in line 313 "Derivation before aggregation is not allowed in wallet policies (despite being allowed in BIP-390)"?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@bigspider bigspider Jun 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I commented here on why I believed that it was undesirable even for descriptors, and in more detail here commenting on the severe performance difference between the two - and also the additional implementation complexity it causes.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jonatack jonatack Jun 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! Fine for a different pull, but if there is no further explanation on this in the BIP, it may be good to add some (along with those links).


Some miniscript policies in <tt>wsh</tt>:
* <tt>wsh(and_v(v:pk(@0/**),or_d(pk(@1/**),older(12960))))</tt> - Trust-minimized second factor, degrading to a single signature after about 90 days.
Expand Down