Recently a big snafu was made about changes to the BIP 85 repository. For those not familiar with the BIP, it’s a very simple scheme to allow generating new word seeds from a derivation path in a pre-existing word seed that you have. The logic of the BIP is to enable people who utilize multiple wallets to manage the chaos of having to maintain individual isolated backups for numerous wallets.

By generating new seeds based on the entropy of a derivation path, users can simply make a single backup of one “master” word seed, and from there be able to regenerate any child seed from that master one. One backup, and you can have as many independent word seeds as you need. They are even safe to transport around, import into different devices or wallets, and have zero risk of putting the master seed or any coins stored on it at risk.

There is cryptographically no way to go backwards from a child seed to the master seed, even if it were compromised. This design makes it very safe to utilize multiple independent seeds/wallets, while streamlining the process of backups to safeguard against loss.

The BIP was updated to follow a pull request suggestion clarifying numerous things, but the key alteration was a change to how the actual child keys were generated, ostensibly to follow the specification in BIP 32 (which details how to generate keys using derivation paths in HD wallets) which BIP 85 did not do strictly. This would have resulted in the same BIP 85 paths generating different keys than they did under the current specification. This is a breaking change.

If it had been implemented in the new specification by any project, it would not properly generate any old BIP 85 seeds that users had already generated and sent money to. This would mean those funds would be “lost” in the sense that the update wallets would no longer correctly generate keys to get people’s money if they had lost a copy of the previously generated seed.

The reality is though, that no wallet would have implemented that feature, or if they did, they would have done so in a way to support both methods, because they already have users in the world that have generated seeds using the old specification. Wallets and device makers would not introduce a change that would just break users ability to recover existing funds, it’s just not in their best interest.

All this incident demonstrated is a lack of communication, nothing more. There was no real risk of anything ripping out to create real world consequences that would have affected users. Projects implementing BIP 85 made no changes, nothing happened except a technical document was changed. It was even reverted to remove the change immediately after public backlash against the nature of the change, and lack of communication between developers and projects actually implementing the BIP.

People need to stop blowing up communication failures like this, that have no real consequences, as instances of nefarious intent, or a profound failure of competence. It was simply a mistake, one that can be learned from by improving communication between developers and project maintainers going forward, that caused no real harm to anyone.

Blowing up molehills into mountains like this serves no one in this space, and does nothing to improve real problems with communication and coordination in the space. Properly contextualizing in a productive civil way so that people can learn is how to handle these things. 

​ A quick take on the latest reason people are yelling at Bitcoin Core developers. 

The smell of fall in the air, this weekend I indulged in apple delicacies, watched the changing leaves, and oh yeah, traveled to make sure my Bitcoin custody is up to date…

If you follow me on X, you know that I hold Bitcoin with Casa, a multisig security provider, and that I use the service to manage a few different multisig vaults for various purposes.

This requires keeping a number of keys and wallets up to date, and since I don’t keep any key materials at home, it requires some degree of routine and dedication. 

I’ve self-custodied my Bitcoin since 2020, and I’ve built up some good habits along the way. That said, something that always strikes me is just how much more nerve-wracking it is than trusted set-ups.

One thing that always gives me pause: the firmware update.

As I’ve written before, I’m not super technical. My specialty in Bitcoin is history, and while, sure that necessitates that I know about network theory and architecture, there is something about watching digital gears and a loading bar that just makes me super uncomfortable.

I say this all because it’s a less-known issue with the Bitcoin hardware wallets most use to self-custody. These devices, termed “signing devices” by Coldcard creator NVK, do just that, they manage your key material, and they sign on your behalf when making a transaction.

But, being live digital devices, they’re not infallible. They require some upkeep. All you need to do is to scroll past a few updates of people losing Bitcoin on firmware updates to know the drawbacks

It’s a common problem, and the culprit is always a corrupt hardware device (and a lost back-up). Add that multisig vaults, which require a combination of keys to sign a transaction, aren’t yet the norm, and the number of lost Bitcoin just seems to always be up and to the right.

The most common issue – the user doesn’t update their firmware often, waits, and later borks their device, thereafter finding they’ve also misplaced their seed phrase. 

Here’s Andreas explaining firmware updates in more detail, though he doesn’t actually update his firmware, he just manages his seed phrase.

Suffice to say, it’s an example of why the world of self-custody, however improved it is, still makes me uneasy. In my case, I updated my wallets without much of an issue. Only one of the wallets even needed a firmware update, and it was simple. (Taking all of a few minutes to prove my coins are safe).

That said, I had to make sure to check my other keys beforehand, and that I had a plurality of the multi-sig keys needed in a worst-case scenario, as well as my seed backups.

This is what makes Bitcoin custody such a high-octane process: you can never be too careful. When you’re your own bank, there’s always a chance that something might go wrong.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

​ Live digital devices, Bitcoin hardware wallets are not infallible. They require some routine upkeep, or at least a seed phrase backup. 

Follow Nikolaus On X Here

The other week, I made my opinion clear that I believe Donald Trump is the best candidate for Bitcoin in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Aaron responded, and after reading it, I feel he’s still missing the bigger picture. Aaron’s main points seem to be that Trump is just using Bitcoiners for their votes, and that he won’t follow through on his promises.

While I partly agree with the former point, I disagree with the latter. Contrary to what I’ve seen some Bitcoiners online say, I do not think Trump has to be a hardcore Bitcoin maximalist and cypherpunk to be a great Bitcoin president. Here’s why.

Trump needs all the votes he can get. Of course he is going to try and appeal to our voters, especially when most of us already have right-leaning political views. It makes sense for the Republican party to adopt freedom money, given they lean more towards the principles of freedom now, while the Democrats have become more authoritarian.

Voting for Trump, then, is a win-win. He gets more votes (some in critical swing states), and we get a better environment for our industry. Sounds like a good trade to me.

And that leads me into what I disagree with Aaron on. I believe that Trump will keep most, if not all of his promises he’s made when it’s come to Bitcoin. Because, well, most of the promises he has made seem like relatively easy things to implement. It’s not like he’s alone on the issue – there are now many pro-Bitcoin senators and congresspeople to hold him accountable.

There’s Senator Cynthis Lummis, who wants to create a strategic Bitcoin reserve (using BTC already owned by the government). There is Congressman Tom Emmer, who already wants to fire SEC Chair Gary Gensler and appoint someone better for the industry. You can go to StandWithCrypto.com to see the rest.

If elected, Trump would have loads of other, arguably more important issues on his plate to deal with. The fact that his policies would give Bitcoiners a friendly regulatory environment to build in, stop anti-Bitcoin politicians from continuing to attack this industry, all without Trump meddling in it, sounds like the perfect storm for innovation.

The fact that he’s done things like bring Bitcoin miners to Mar-a-Lago to better understand the industry is enough evidence to make this point.

I think many are overly critical of Trump because he said he wasn’t a fan of Bitcoin in 2019. But that was ages ago, and everything has changed since then. It doesn’t make sense to hate on people for coming around to Bitcoin after not being a fan of it. (I do, however, think it is ok to be critical of the non-Bitcoin initiatives Trump has promoted, like World Liberty Financial, but even that isn’t worth losing all the benefits of his presidency.)

So, why would Trump free Ross now when he already had the chance to last term?

In politics, as in Bitcoin, it’s all about incentives, and the incentives here are aligned.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

​ Trump would allow a friendly regulatory environment for Bitcoiners to thrive in.