Skip to content
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.

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

gui: add support for tapminiscript on bitbox02 #1400

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

pythcoiner
Copy link
Collaborator

@pythcoiner pythcoiner commented Oct 30, 2024

This PR is build on top of #1357, with few adds:

  • get the version from bitbox device
  • check the version for taproot support
  • copy tap_script_signs & tap_key_sig if present in the pruned psbt after signature

Tested spending by internal key & taptree w/ differents setups

Note: this PR use bitbox-tapminiscript branch of async-hwi

@pythcoiner pythcoiner marked this pull request as ready for review October 30, 2024 11:04
@pythcoiner pythcoiner marked this pull request as draft October 30, 2024 11:07
@pythcoiner
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Note: taproot-policies have been merged in bitbox-api but they do not yet released a new crate version.

@benma do you plan to release a new version of the crate or we should release on top of your GH master branch?

@nondiremanuel nondiremanuel added the Signing devices Anything related to signing devices ("hardware wallets") label Oct 30, 2024
@nondiremanuel nondiremanuel added the Nice to have If it's not completed in time for the current version, it can be postponed label Oct 30, 2024
@benma
Copy link

benma commented Oct 31, 2024

Note: taproot-policies have been merged in bitbox-api but they do not yet released a new crate version.

@benma do you plan to release a new version of the crate or we should release on top of your GH master branch?

I published https://crates.io/crates/bitbox-api v0.6.0 which includes the necessary changes.

@pythcoiner
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rebased on master, so now uses async-hwi 0.24.0

@edouardparis edouardparis marked this pull request as ready for review November 4, 2024 13:22
Copy link
Member

@edouardparis edouardparis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 01f6d2b
Tested for a tr(2of2->3blocks->2of1) registration, address verification, spending and recovery

@edouardparis edouardparis merged commit 3549a71 into wizardsardine:master Nov 4, 2024
31 checks passed
@benma
Copy link

benma commented Nov 4, 2024

@edouardparis did you also test using multiple inputs but using same xpub in both primary and recovery to see if the filtering works? The BitBox only signs for one keypath per input, and the one it picks from the PSBT is arbitary so it could go wrong if for one input it signs for the primary and for the second input it signs for the secondary keypath.

@edouardparis
Copy link
Member

edouardparis commented Nov 4, 2024

Thanks for the reminder, I just tested it with the two inputs and the decaying multisig that has the bitbox xpub in both paths and it works as expected. The PR also does not touch the previous logic of removing misleading bip32 derivation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Nice to have If it's not completed in time for the current version, it can be postponed Signing devices Anything related to signing devices ("hardware wallets")
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants