Software wallets and hardware signing devices typically partition funds into separate "accounts". When signing or visualizing a transaction, aggregate flows of funds of all accounts affected by the transaction may (and should) be displayed to the user.
Wallet policies build on top of output script descriptors to represent such accounts in a compact, reviewable way.
An account encompasses a logical group of receive and change addresses, and each wallet policy represents all descriptors necessary to describe an account in its entirety.
We simplify the language to suit devices with limited memory, where even keeping the entire descriptor in memory could be a major hurdle, by reducing the generality of descriptors to just the essential features and by separating the extended pubkeys and other key information from the descriptor.
The compilation of wallet policies to the corresponding descriptor is trivial, and the reverse process is easy for supported descriptors, because the language is kept similar to that of output script descriptors.
''[[bip-0380.mediawiki|Output Script Descriptors]]'' were introduced in Bitcoin Core as a way to represent collections of output scripts. It is a general and flexible language, designed to catch all the possible use-cases of bitcoin wallets (that is, if you know the script and you have the necessary keys, it will be possible to sign transactions with any descriptor-based software wallet).
Unfortunately, descriptors are not a perfect match for the typical usage of hardware signing devices (often also called ''hardware wallets''). Most of them have some of the following limitations when compared to a general-purpose machine running Bitcoin Core:
Moreover, other limitations like the limited size of the screen might affect what design choices are available in practice. Therefore, minimizing the amount of information shown on-screen is important for a good user experience. The ability for the user to completely validate on-screen the kind of script used (and each of the involved keys) is crucial for secure usage, as the machine that is interacting with the hardware signer (and running the software wallet) is considered untrusted.
A more native, compact representation of the wallet receive and change addresses might also benefit the UX of software wallets when they use descriptors (possibly with miniscript) for representing complex locking conditions.
Hardware signing devices strive to guarantee that no action can be performed without the user’s consent as long as the user correctly verifies the information that is shown on the device’s screen before approving.
This must hold even in scenarios where the attacker has full control of the machine that is connected to the signing device, and can execute arbitrary requests, or tamper with the legitimate user's requests.
Therefore, it is not at all trivial to allow complex scripts, especially if they contain keys that belong to third parties.
The hardware signing device must guarantee that the user knows precisely what "policy" is being used to spend the funds, and that any "unspent" funds (if any) that is sent to a change address will be protected by the same policy.
This makes it impossible for an attacker to surreptitiously modify the policy, therefore stealing or burning the user's funds.
Reusing keys across different UTXOs harms user privacy by allowing external parties to link these UTXOs to the same entity once they are spent.
By constraining the derivation path patterns to have a uniform structure, wallet policies prevent key reuse among the same or different UTXOs of the same account.
It is strongly recommended to avoid key reuse across accounts. Distinct public keys per account can be guaranteed by using distinct hardened derivation paths. This specification does not mandate hardened derivation in order to maintain compatibility with existing deployments that do not adhere to this recommendation.
It is out of scope for this document to guarantee that users do not reuse extended public keys among different wallet accounts. This is still very important, but the responsibility is left to the users and their software wallet.
Miniscript (and taproot trees) allow substantially more complex spending policies. It is a challenge to ensure that the user can practically verify such spending policies per the screen.
Designing a secure protocol for the coordination of a descriptor wallet among distant parties is also a challenging problem that is out of scope in this document. See [[bip-0129.mediawiki|BIP-129 (Bitcoin Secure Multisig Setup)]] for an approach designed for multisignature wallets. Regardless of the approach, the ability for the user to carefully verify all the details of the spending policies using the hardware signer's screen is a prerequisite for security in adversarial environments.
A solution to address the security concerns, and part of the UX concerns, is to have a registration flow for the wallet policy in the hardware signing device. The ''wallet policy'' must contain enough information to generate all the relevant addresses/scripts, and for the hardware signing device to identify the keys that it controls and that are needed to spend the funds sent to those addresses.
Before a new policy is used for the first time, the user will register a wallet policy into the hardware device. While the details of the process are out of scope in this document, the flow should be something similar to the following:
# The software wallet initiates a ''wallet policy registration'' on the hardware signing device; the information should include the wallet policy, but also a unique ''name'' that identifies the policy.
# The device shows the wallet policy to the user using the secure screen.
# After inspecting the policy and comparing it with a trusted source (for example a printed backup), the user approves the policy.
# If stateful, the hardware signing device persists the policy in its permanent memory; if stateless, it returns a "proof of registration".
The '''proof of registration''' will allow the hardware signer to verify that a certain policy was indeed previously approved by the user, and is therefore safe to use without repeating the expensive user verification procedure. The details of how to create a proof of registration are out of scope for this document; using a Message Authentication Code on a hash committing to the wallet policy, its name and any additional metadata is an effective solution if correctly executed.
Before any of the actions mentioned above, the hardware signing device will retrieve the policy from its permanent storage if stateful; if stateless it will validate the proof of registration before using the wallet policy provided by the client.
Once the previously registered policy is correctly identified and approved by the user (for example by showing its name), and as long as the policy registration was executed securely, hardware signing devices can provide a user experience similar to the usual one for single-signature transactions.
=== Avoiding blowup in descriptor size ===
While reusing a pubkey in different branches of a miniscript is explicitly forbidden by miniscript (as it has certain negative security implications), it is still reasonable to reuse the same xpub in multiple places, albeit with different final steps of derivation (so that the actual pubkeys that are used in the script are indeed different).
In fact, there are many reasonable spending policies with a quadratic size in the number of participants. For example, using Taproot, a 3-of-5 multisignature wallet could use:
Replacing the common part of the key with a short key placeholder and organizing all the key expressions in a separate list helps to keep the size of the wallet policy small, which is crucial to allow human inspection during the registration flow.
This section formally defines wallet policies, and how they relate to output script descriptors.
=== Formal definition ===
A ''wallet policy'' is composed by a ''wallet descriptor template'', together with a vector of ''key information items''.
==== Wallet descriptor template ====
A ''wallet descriptor template'' is a <tt>SCRIPT</tt> expression.
<tt>SCRIPT</tt> expressions:
* <tt>sh(SCRIPT)</tt> (top level only): P2SH embed the argument.
* <tt>wsh(SCRIPT)</tt> (top level or inside <tt>sh</tt> only): P2WSH embed the argument.
* <tt>pkh(KP)</tt> (not inside <tt>tr</tt>): P2PKH output for the given public key.
* <tt>wpkh(KP)</tt> (top level or inside <tt>sh</tt> only): P2WPKH output for the given compressed pubkey.
* <tt>multi(k,KP_1,KP_2,...,KP_n)</tt> (inside <tt>sh</tt> or <tt>wsh</tt> only): ''k''-of-''n'' multisig script.
* <tt>sortedmulti(k,KP_1,KP_2,...,KP_n)</tt> (inside <tt>sh</tt> or <tt>wsh</tt> only): ''k''-of-''n'' multisig script with keys sorted lexicographically in the resulting script.
* <tt>tr(KP)</tt> or <tt>tr(KP,TREE)</tt> (top level only): P2TR output with the specified key as internal key, and optionally a tree of script paths.
* any valid miniscript template (inside <tt>wsh</tt> or <tt>tr</tt> only).
Note that while [[bip-0389.mediawiki|BIP-389]] allows multipath <tt>/<NUM;NUM;...;NUM></tt> expressions with an arbitrary number of options, this specification restricts it to exactly 2 choices (with the typical meaning of receive/change addresses).
The placeholder <tt>@i</tt> for some number ''i'' represents the ''i''-th key in the vector of key information items (which must be of size at least ''i + 1'', or the wallet policy is invalid).
Note: while descriptor templates for miniscript are not formally defined in this version of the document (pending standardization), it is straightforward to adapt this approach by adding additional <tt>SCRIPT</tt> expressions.
** Exactly 8 hex characters for the fingerprint of the master key from which this key is derived from (see [[bip-0032.mediawiki|BIP-32]] for details)
** Followed by zero or more <tt>/NUM'</tt> or <tt>/NUM</tt> path elements to indicate hardened or unhardened derivation steps between the fingerprint and the xpub that follows
** A closing bracket <tt>]</tt>
* Followed by the actual key, which is a serialized extended public key (as defined in [[bip-0032.mediawiki|BIP-32]]).
==== Additional rules ====
A wallet policy must have at least one key placeholder and the corresponding key.
The public keys obtained by deserializing elements of the key information vector must be pairwise distinct<ref>'''Why must public keys be distinct?''' Reusing pubkeys could be insecure in the context of wallet policies containing [https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/ miniscript]. Avoiding repeated public keys altogether avoids the problem at the source.</ref>.
If two key placeholders are <tt>@i/<M;N>/*</tt> and <tt>@i/<P;Q>/*</tt> for the same index <tt>i</tt>, then the sets <tt>{M, N}</tt> and <tt>{P, Q}</tt> must be disjoint.
The key information vector should be ordered so that placeholder <tt>@i</tt> never appears for the first time before an occurrence of <tt>@j</tt> for some <tt>j < i</tt>; for example, the first placeholder is always <tt>@0</tt>, the next one is <tt>@1</tt>, etc.
From a wallet descriptor template (and the associated vector of key information items), one can therefore obtain the corresponding multipath descriptor by:
It is acceptable to implement only a subset of the possible wallet policies defined by this standard. It is recommended that any limitations are clearly documented.
Implementations can add additional metadata that is stored together with the wallet policy for the purpose of wallet policy registration and later usage. Metadata can be vendor-specific and is out of the scope of this document.
Any implementation in a software wallet that allows wallet policies not matching any of the specifications in [[bip-0044.mediawiki|BIP-44]], [[bip-0049.mediawiki|BIP-49]], [[bip-0084.mediawiki|BIP-84]], [[bip-0086.mediawiki|BIP-86]] (especially if involving external cosigners) should put great care into a process for backing up the wallet policy that represents the account. In fact, unlike standard single-signature scenarios, the seed alone is no longer enough to discover wallet policies with existing funds, and the loss of the backup is likely to lead to permanent loss of funds. Unlike the seed, leaking such backups only affects the privacy of the user, but it does not allow the attacker to steal funds.
=== Optional derivation paths ===
In order to allow supporting legacy derivation schemes (for example, using simply <tt>/*</tt> instead of the more common <tt>/<M;N>/*</tt> scheme most software wallets use today), or other schemes that are not covered in this document, implementations might choose to permit additional derivation patterns for the key placeholder (<tt>KP</tt>) expressions.
However, care needs to be taken in view of the following considerations:
* Allowing derivation schemes with a different length or cardinality in the same wallet policy would make it difficult to guarantee that there are no repeated pubkeys for every possible address generated by the policy. For example, <tt>@0/<0;1>/*</tt> and <tt>@1/*</tt> would generate the same pubkeys if the second public key in the key information vector is one of the first two unhardened children of the first public key. This could cause malleability with potential security implications (for example, in policies containing miniscript).
* Allowing naked pubkeys with no <tt>/*</tt> suffix (for example a descriptor template like <tt>wsh(multi(2,@0,@1/<0;1>/*))</tt>) would cause a pubkey to be repeated in every output generated from the policy, which would result in a total loss of privacy.
== Examples ==
In the examples in this section, the vector of key information items is omitted. See the test vectors below for complete examples.
* <tt>wsh(and_v(v:pk(@0/**),or_d(pk(@1/**),older(12960))))</tt> - Trust-minimized second factor, degrading to a single signature after about 90 days.
* <tt>wsh(thresh(3,pk(@0/**),s:pk(@1/**),s:pk(@2/**),sln:older(12960)))</tt> - A 3-of-3 wallet that becomes a 2-of-3 if coins are not spent for about 90 days.
* <tt>wsh(or_d(pk(@0/**),and_v(v:multi(2,@1/**,@2/**,@3/**),older(65535))))</tt> - A singlesig wallet with automatic inheritance to a timelocked 2-of-3 multisig of family members.
* <tt>sh(multi(1,@0/**,xpub6AHA9hZDN11k2ijHMeS5QqHx2KP9aMBRhTDqANMnwVtdyw2TDYRmF8PjpvwUFcL1Et8Hj59S3gTSMcUQ5gAqTz3Wd8EsMTmF3DChhqPQBnU/<0;1>/*))</tt>: Expression with a non-KP key present
The <tt>@</tt> character used for key placeholders is not part of the syntax of output script descriptors, therefore any valid descriptor with at least one <tt>KEY</tt> expression is not a valid descriptor template. Vice versa, any descriptor template with at least one key placeholder is not a valid output script descriptor.
Adoption of wallet policies in software and hardware wallets is opt-in. Conversion from wallet policies to the corresponding descriptors is programmatically extremely easy, and conversion from descriptors to wallet policies (when respecting the required patterns) can be automated. See the reference implementation below for some examples of conversion.
Software wallets are recommended to allow exporting plain descriptors for the purposes of interoperability with software not using wallet policies.
== Reference Implementation ==
Wallet policies are implemented in
* the [https://github.com/LedgerHQ/app-bitcoin-new Ledger bitcoin application] since version 2.1.0;
* the [https://github.com/digitalbitbox/bitbox02-firmware BitBox02 firmware] since version v9.15.0;
* [https://github.com/Blockstream/Jade Blockstream Jade] since version v1.0.24, via [https://github.com/ElementsProject/libwally-core libwally-core] v1.0.0.
For development and testing purposes, we provide a [[bip-0388/wallet_policies.py|Python 3.7 reference implementation]] of simple classes to handle wallet policies, and the conversion to/from output script descriptors.
