Skip to content

BIP: Standard Encrypted Wallet Payload#1981

Open
KeysSoze wants to merge 3 commits into
bitcoin:masterfrom
KeysSoze:wallet_payload
Open

BIP: Standard Encrypted Wallet Payload#1981
KeysSoze wants to merge 3 commits into
bitcoin:masterfrom
KeysSoze:wallet_payload

Conversation

@KeysSoze
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request proposes a new BIP for a standard, interoperable format for encrypted wallet backups and transfers.

The core design choice is the separation of the data payload from the cryptographic container. This BIP specifies the payload format, while mandating that it must be encrypted by a container defined in companion proposals.

Key features include:

  • CBOR Serialisation: Uses CBOR for a compact, efficient, and extensible binary format suitable for resource-constrained devices.
  • Descriptor-Centric: Aligns with modern wallet architecture by using BIP 380 Output Script Descriptors as the primary method for defining accounts.
  • Comprehensive Data: The schema includes accounts, master secret material, transaction data, UTXOs and standardised metadata.

This proposal was previously posted to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/3I-qtBhzIGY

Seeking assignment of a BIP number and welcoming all feedback.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hello @KeysSoze,

This document is incorrectly formatted in a manner that makes me think that it was AI generated. If you are still interested in pursuing this proposal, could you please fix the formatting?

At this time, given the lack of replies on the mailing list and comments on this PR, it is not clear to me that this proposal is being pursued for implementation by any Bitcoin project. Given that there are several other backup related proposals in flight, perhaps some of the corresponding authors would be interested in reviewing your document if you review theirs.

I‘d be happy to provide a more thorough review when this proposal has gotten review from other parties and that review has been addressed, or the proposal otherwise distinguishes itself from its perceived AI-generated origin.

@murchandamus
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

murchandamus commented May 20, 2026

Hello @KeysSoze, I was referring to the unnecessary HTML tags in the document. If you are still working on this, there are some similar proposals that have been recently merged or are still in flight

which might interest you.

KeysSoze added 3 commits May 21, 2026 22:35
Changed preamble to more closely follow BIP standards
Removed table of contents
@KeysSoze
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

KeysSoze commented May 21, 2026

Hi @murchandamus,

here are some similar proposals that have been recently merged or are still in flight

which might interest you.

Yes, it seems BIP139: Wallet Metadata Backup Format is quite similar to this proposal.

But rather than using JSON, this proposal defines a rigid CDDL schema with deterministic CBOR, enforcing true inter-wallet compatibility. CBOR's compact binary nature drastically reduces the payload size making air-gapped QR codes or NFC transfers highly viable if defined in a companion BIP.

Furthermore, the modular nature of this proposal delegates security to battle-tested IETF standards like COSE via a separate companion BIP. This ensures the standard is inherently future-proofed. As cryptography advances developers can seamlessly upgrade ciphers, implement multi-party authorisation or adopt post-quantum algorithms within the security container without ever needing to alter the core wallet payload format.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants