What happen if one of the people in my multiSig setup became a problem later?

[Orange89]

hey I am thinking about these

So if an Multisig wallet of 3 To 5 People in my group

What if one of these people Disappear or
becomes Untrustfuly Or Passed Away?
So how do I can remove these persn
who is the problem & replace them with some new person
Can I do these safely without losing my token

I want to make sure I do not create that something
which is hard to fix later if problems happen

Do tell I am really curious to see and knew about it from memebers

[Zaguru12]

You can’t simply just remove the person you will have to create a new multi sig account and then move your funds there.

This is 3-of-5 multisig so if the person is just one co-signer you still have four more co-signers left and the need co-signers to actually move transactions is three so such person who is a problem is simply not too much of a question because even if they try to actually move coins from such wallet the person will need the two more extra co-signers from the remain four to be able to do anything.

But for security you will need to create another multi sig again because you cannot remove a co-signer and add a new one AFAIK. You can easily your coins to the new wallet with the help of the remaining Co-signer

[Orange89]

You can’t simply just remove the person you will have to create a new multi sig account and then move your funds there.

Extra co owner I think yes for all new member that think to do the multi sig I think it's good point

yeah that exectly what worry me
like if that untrusty person do not approve the transaction
then we get stuck right ? ?
so how do people handle these on real life
do they have some backup plan or legal court way to force that approval
or maybe the way to avoid these problem from that start
would  love to hear if someone actually deal with such mess

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

There are actually different variations of a multi-sig wallet depending on the number of cosigners that is required to broadcast a transaction. Basically you can make a one of five multi signature wallet but the thing is it wouldn't make that much sense since it's just like having a standard wallet and then sharing the seat phrase across.
One of the best if you need it easy to fix or something related as the case may be would be the 3 of 5 or 2 of 5.

What are simply means is if you are using a 3 of 5 multisig wallet Ben you would need at least three users signatures to be able to successfully sign and broadcast a transaction. So that means if one person passes or becomes unreliable, 3 of the other 4 can still sign transactions together and possibly move the coins to a new multi-sig wallet for better safety.

[satscraper]

~

Do tell I am really curious to see and knew about it from memebers

Look, AFAIK, the current multisig wallets don’t allow removing/adding cosigner while preserving the same key that was originally generated. That said, there is flexible round-optimized schnorr threshold signatures technique that makes this possible. FrostSnap developers employ this technique at developing their product, thus, we might start seeing such wallets in the near future ^{since a working prototype already exists and the developers are actively moving the project forward}. If you're interested in the details, check out this thread to learn more about frostsnap.

[AVE5]

Wallets with the multisig signees is a set of embedded security system that can only grant access of performing transactions only when all the security keys are keyed in. It's expected that before the collaboration of assigning the security phrases to the multisignee, a core understanding must have been addressed amongst you all because, such a reputable wallet can't afford to compromise by giving accessibility where signatories (wallet security phrases) are incomplete. Besides the Wallet security mechanism wouldn't even  trust 99% of you as it can't decode the disagreements in reality.
What it only reads is "cooperation" where unity is a trust and doesn't permits a maneuver if a majority tries to have access to the system were one signatory is missing out.

You can take a scenario of loosing just one of your own private wallet seed phrase and  impossibilities of recovering it is tantamount to the lost of your fund in it because the network can't understand your reality state of emotion.

[Charles-Tim]

@Orange89
Follow what Zaguru posted.

It is 3-of-5 multisig. That means 3 people are enough to spend from the wallet. If you all agree to remove just one person, set up another multisig wallet and send the coins there. That is just it.

[Orange89]

@Orange89
Follow what Zaguru posted.

It is 3-of-5 multisig. That means 3 people are enough to spend from the wallet. If you all agree to remove just one person, set up another multisig wallet and send the coins there. That is just it.

I think I can be phrased that even better i mean like  full consensus multisig
if exactly we have "3-of-3" or "5-of-5 " where everyone is agrees
Like if I already set these 3 of 3 there after if anyone refuses then do I have a chance to remove and recover that's I want to knew weather legally or in any way

[Charles-Tim]

I think I can be phrased that even better i mean like  full consensus multisig
if exactly we have "3-of-3" or "5-of-5 " where everyone is agrees
Like if I already set these 3 of 3 there after if anyone refuses then do I have a chance to remove and recover that's I want to knew weather legally or in any way

If it is 3-of-3 or in a way it is n-of-n, if the person die or something happened in a way he do not want to cooperate, you will lose the coin because all of you must sign any transaction you are making using the multisig set up. It is better you have m-of-n instead. I mean the signers should be lesser in number than those involved in setting up the wallet.

[Zaguru12]

I think I can be phrased that even better i mean like  full consensus multisig
if exactly we have "3-of-3" or "5-of-5 " where everyone is agrees
Like if I already set these 3 of 3 there after if anyone refuses then do I have a chance to remove and recover that's I want to knew weather legally or in any way

You cannot recover such wallet again if the total multi sig equals the number of co-signers because you need all actual co-signers from the set up to actually send out coins from that wallet. That’s why it is very bad to have such set up as a multi sig co-signers, and m-of-n multi sig wallet is the best so that if one co-signer gives problem or loses their wallets seed phrase you wouldn’t lose such wallets, best method is as I have stated before, do not go and use any script to adds co-signers just simply create a new multi sig wallet and move your funds their.

n-of-n is a poor multi sig wallet for group of people looking to store funds together.

[Orange89]

I think I can be phrased that even better i mean like  full consensus multisig
if exactly we have "3-of-3" or "5-of-5 " where everyone is agrees
Like if I already set these 3 of 3 there after if anyone refuses then do I have a chance to remove and recover that's I want to knew weather legally or in any way

You cannot recover such wallet again if the total multi sig equals the number of co-signers because you need all actual co-signers from the set up to actually send out coins from that wallet. That’s why it is very bad to have such set up as a multi sig co-signers, and m-of-n multi sig wallet is the best so that if one co-signer gives problem or loses their wallets seed phrase you wouldn’t lose such wallets, best method is as I have stated before, do not go and use any script to adds co-signers just simply create a new multi sig wallet and move your funds their.

n-of-n is a poor multi sig wallet for group of people looking to store funds together.

That's really bad I thought somehow or other it can't recovered nevertheless
Learn something new today for now and even for future
Will always try to follow these m-n of storing of all of my funds

[mcdouglasx]

In a scenario where you have three users considered impartial, the best setup would be a 3-6 signature scheme, where each user has access to two signatures. If one of them passes away, two users would still be able to sign with three keys, but one alone would not. This would be equivalent to a 2-of-3 signature, but it would require two users willing to move the funds.

[Stalker22]

That's really bad I thought somehow or other it can't recovered nevertheless
Learn something new today for now and even for future
Will always try to follow these m-n of storing of all of my funds

This isnt inherently bad; its simply how n-of-n multisignature wallets work. Its analogous to a single-signature wallet where losing the single key is critical. However, with n-of-n, the requirement is to maintain all n private keys; losing even one means losing access to the funds.

If your priority is having a safety net or a backup plan for accessing your coins, then an n-of-n multisig setup is definitely not the best option.

[ABCbits]

If all of involved participants are advanced user or willing to use certain software, they could create Taproot address with custom spending script/rule. For example, you can create rule that the Bitcoin can be spent using 3-of-5 signature anytime or 2-of-5 signature after it passed X duration of timelock. But it also have downside where you need to refresh the timelock periodically by spending involved UTXOs and send it to same address.

[rat03gopoh]

Basically you can make a one of five multi signature wallet but the thing is it wouldn't make that much sense since it's just like having a standard wallet and then sharing the seat phrase across.

I just found out about that. I once did a trial with electrum, and there it was not allowed to set less than 2 signers and cosifners as well. I thought this was a standard rule for any bitcoin wallet that provides a wizard for setting up a multisig wallet.

Will always try to follow these m-n of storing of all of my funds

A tip that I think is good, make people who don't know each other as cosigners, this just prevents collusion later on.