Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/btc
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
Today I learned Bitcoin natively supports Multi Sigs. How come we're not talking about Ethereum not having that natively!?!?!! How come this isn't part of Ethereum? Seems like an oversight that could add security? What am I missing here and where can I learn more about the implementation and BTC best practices? https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-the-limits-of-m-and-n-in-m-of-n-multisig-addresses
8 replies
1 recast
15 reactions
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
@vitalik.eth would be best placed to answer about the original intent, but I think it had to do with Ethereum being a general-purpose computer — why hard bake multisigs at the opcode / protocol level when they can be implemented more flexibly at the app level? Bitcoin’s multisig is a simple M-of-N, but with a smart contract, you can also define it to be role-based (like in a DAO with an admin and a treasurer), time-locked (like in how Compound upgrades I believe), etc. or even combine those (like how Gnosis Safe has M-of-N + role-based).
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
Meaning BTC is "native" since no programmability otherwise, but ETH -> Full programmability.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
World computer > monolithic pet rock Of course @cassie will roll over us all with her galaxy-brain MPC
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
Multisig makes sense to have as a contract instead of a native feature (mostly, provided it's cheap enough to execute), however, BLS signature aggregation for multisig is something eth could support at the execution level with a way better cost vs contract.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
