Multi-Script Hierarchy for Multi-Sig Wallets

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 48 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A logical hierarchy for deterministic multi-sig wallets based on an algorithm described in BIP-0067 (BIP67 from now on), BIP-0032 (BIP32 from now on), purpose scheme described in BIP-0043 (BIP43 from now on), and multi-account hierarchy described in BIP-0044 (BIP44 from now on).
3. Name the object that changes: BIP67, BIP32, BIP43.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 48 at the status the text itself states: Deployed.
• The object that has to change is BIP67, BIP32, BIP43. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Status in the header is not adoption.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What must an implementation of Multi-Script Hierarchy for Multi-Sig Wallets accept, and what may it ignore?
• Is this consensus, peer policy, or an application interface?
• Which names does the text pin down: BIP67, BIP32, BIP43?

Terms

BIP 48

The public text titled Multi-Script Hierarchy for Multi-Sig Wallets.

Deployed

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

An interface that is only a name in a repository will be re-implemented differently by every team, which is how shared contracts break.

What the design proposes

• A logical hierarchy for deterministic multi-sig wallets based on an algorithm described in BIP-0067 (BIP67 from now on), BIP-0032 (BIP32 from now on), purpose scheme described in BIP-0043 (BIP43 from now on), and multi-account hierarchy described in BIP-0044 (BIP44 from now on).
• The motivation of this BIP is to define the existing industry wide practice of utilizing m/48' derivation paths in hierarchical deterministic multi-sig wallets so that other developers may benefit from a standard.
• This BIP allows for future script types to easily be appended to the specification so that a new BIP is not required for every future script type.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The motivation of this BIP is to define the existing industry wide practice of utilizing m/48' derivation paths in hierarchical deterministic multi-sig wallets so that other developers may benefit from a standard.
• Locate BIP67, BIP32, BIP43 in BIP 48 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• This document does not set a fee, a valuation, or a security proof.
• Status in the header is not adoption.
• The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 48 when a pitch says 'Multi-Script Hierarchy for Multi-Sig Wallets' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.