SIP-027: non sequential multisig transactions

[jbencin]

While implementing Stacks multisig in the Ledger app (Zondax/ledger-stacks#152), I found the current multisig format confusing and hard to work with. Other developers that have tried to work with multisig seem feel the same way (example: PR #139), and as far as I know there is currently no Stacks wallet with full multisig support. So wrote up this SIP which makes slight modifications to SIP-005 to add a new multisig transaction type which is a bit simpler and allows participants to sign in any order.

[AcrossfireX]

@jbencin - can you comment on how this relates to stacks-network/stacks-core#3710 and its associated SIP draft? Is it possible to fold these into one shared SIP effort? Let me know if it makes more sense for them to remain seperate.

[jbencin]

@AcrossfireX That PR is now implementing this draft SIP. I know there is another draft SIP mentioning order-independent multisig (#139), but that one lacks implementation details

[fess-v]

I will close the previous SIP PR so we can move all discussions to this one instead @jbencin @AcrossfireX

[MarvinJanssen]

I welcome this SIP as it will make multisig much easier to use on Stacks. Excited to see more work in this direction. Some initial comments.

[AcrossfireX]

This SIP should be considered Accepted from the SIP Editors and should progress to technical CAB review. (Likely already underway)

[jbencin]

One more small thing I want to add here...

Even though the signing order is independent, the order of the public keys in the auth fields still determines how the address is generated. For backwards compatibility and to enable previously generated multisig accounts to use order-independent signing, I don't think we should mandate public key order, but I think we should recommend a public key ordering of least to greatest (which is equivalent to lexicographical sorting of hex-encoded values) to remove the guesswork when creating a transaction

[Hero-Gamer]

The vote results need to be posted to this SIP, then it should be merged.

Brice I got all the stats for you!

Activation Status
At the end of cycle 90, the following vote was calculated. A total of 118,632,231 STX participated.

• For solo stacking, 100% voted 'Yes.' Total voting power is 3,449,000 STX balance with votes cast from 1 account.

• For pool stacking, 100% voted 'Yes.' Total voting power is 114,914,556 STX balance with votes cast from 75 accounts.

• For non-stackers, 99.9933% voted 'Yes.' Total voting power of ‘Yes’ is 268,674 STX balance with votes cast from 157 accounts. 
For non-stackers, 0.0067% voted ’No.’ Total voting power of ‘No’ is 17 STX balance from 3 account.
  268,691.89

All voting criteria from STX holders have been met. A breakdown of the transactions can be found here.
A copy of the scripts used to tabulate the solo and pool stacking can be found here.

Script will be uploaded to SIP-027 folder by Jeff, once it's there URL will be available for text here.

[Hero-Gamer]

cc: @jbencin

[obycode]

LGTM

[jcnelson]

It is truly a pleasure to merge this in <3

[jcnelson]

Hi reviewers,

Can you please approve and merge #191 instead? It contains some fixes to this SIP, which I can't push directly since this PR comes from @jbencin's account.

Thanks!

[jcnelson]

Only requesting changes to that the superseding PR #191 can be reviewed and merged. It contains the same commit history as this; I merely took the liberty of resolving my own comments on top of this.

Please review the above PR instead so we can get this merged in 🎉

[jbencin]

Applied @Hero-Gamer's latest suggestion and merged @jcnelson's changes from #191

[jcnelson]

just need one more approval cc @obycode