Modifications to BIP 85 and their ramifications
By producing new seeds grounded in the entropy of a derivation path, users can formulate a single backup of one “master” word seed. From this master seed, they can regenerate any requisite child seed. This implies that with merely one backup, users can handle any number of independent word seeds as necessary. These seeds can be securely transported, imported into various devices or wallets, and do not compromise the master seed or the coins associated with it.
Following the BIP 85 update controversy, several essential insights have surfaced for both developers and the broader cryptocurrency community. First and foremost, the event highlighted the necessity for clear and transparent communication among developers, wallet providers, and users. In a field as sensitive as cryptocurrency, where even minor alterations can yield significant financial repercussions, it is vital that all parties are informed about potential updates, particularly when they involve breaking changes.
For wallet providers and device manufacturers, this situation underscores the necessity of preserving backward compatibility. In a fast-evolving domain like cryptocurrency, where new standards and enhancements are continually being proposed, it is crucial to ensure that updates do not unintentionally lock users out of their funds. This is especially relevant in Australia, where crypto adoption is increasing, and users expect their wallets to be dependable and secure.
From a developer’s standpoint, this incident accentuates the necessity for thorough testing and consideration of edge cases prior to implementing updates. While the intention behind aligning BIP 85 with BIP 32 was to bolster consistency, the potential ramifications for existing users were not wholly taken into account. Moving forward, developers must guarantee that any modifications to widely-used standards like BIP 85 are meticulously vetted and communicated well in advance to prevent similar complications.
Recently, a notable commotion emerged regarding modifications to the BIP 85 repository. For those not in the know, BIP 85 is a simple method that enables users to create new word seeds from a derivation path within an existing word seed. The rationale behind BIP 85 is to assist users who handle multiple wallets in avoiding the turmoil of maintaining separate backups for each wallet.
Significantly, there is no cryptographic approach to reverse-engineer a child seed back to the master seed, even if the child seed is compromised. This structure guarantees that users can securely utilize multiple independent seeds or wallets while streamlining the backup process to safeguard against loss.
Insights gained and future direction
Had this change been enacted, it would have created issues for users who had already produced BIP 85 seeds and transferred funds to them. The updated wallets would no longer correctly generate the keys necessary to access those funds, effectively rendering them “lost” if the earlier generated seed was misplaced.
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com
For Australian crypto enthusiasts, this serves as a reminder of the need to stay informed about the technical foundations of the tools they utilize. While many users may not explore the intricacies of BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals), grasping the basics of how updates can influence wallet functionality is crucial. In this instance, the proposed changes to BIP 85 could have resulted in a scenario where users were unable to access their funds, if the update had been put into practice without appropriate backward compatibility. Fortunately, the prompt response from the community and developers averted any tangible harm, but it underscores the necessity for vigilance.
However, the actuality is that no wallet would have executed this change without evaluating the potential impact. Wallets and device manufacturers have existing users who depend on the old specification, and it would not serve their interests to implement a change that would hinder users from retrieving their funds. Had the change been executed, it likely would have been in a manner that accommodated both the old and new methods.
Another lesson is the significance of community input in the development process. The backlash from users and developers alike was instrumental in the decision to revert the changes. This incident showcases the strength of decentralized governance in the crypto realm, where the community can actively engage in shaping the trajectory of projects. For Australians participating in the global crypto ecosystem, this serves as a reminder that their voices count, and that they can influence the ongoing development of the tools they depend on.
Ultimately, the BIP 85 incident serves as a case study in how the crypto community can learn from its missteps and improve. By fostering enhanced communication, promoting community participation, and prioritizing user safety, the ecosystem can continue to evolve in a manner that benefits all parties involved. For Australian crypto users, this is a reminder to remain engaged, stay informed, and always be ready for the unforeseen in the dynamic landscape of cryptocurrency.
The latest update to BIP 85 came after a pull request that elucidated various facets of the proposal. Nonetheless, the principal modification concerned how child keys were generated. The update sought to synchronize BIP 85 with the specifications of BIP 32, which delineates the method for generating keys using derivation paths in HD wallets. Under the revised specification, the identical BIP 85 paths would generate dissimilar keys than they previously did, marking a breaking change.
