<p>Yes, both of these policies achieve what you are trying to do.</p>
<p><code>thresh(2,pk(A),or(pk(B),pk(C)))</code></p>
<p><code>thresh(2,pk(A),thresh(1,pk(B),pk(C)))</code></p>
<p>Each of them use <code>thresh()</code> as defined <a href="https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>thresh(NUM,POL,POL,...): Require that NUM out of the following subpolicies are met (all combinations are assumed to be equally likely).</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-27T03:01:48.790Z
This link is broken. I am trying to setup a multisig wallet using Sparrow. I have tried entering these definitions in the Script Policy Description field but it is throwing an "Invalid output descriptor" error.
Guru Josh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-09T04:22:22.950Z
2022-11-09T07:59:48.750Z
2022-11-09T07:59:48.750Z
viM
<p>There is another solution but it removes the ability to identify who signed the second transaction. 
Create a 2 of 2 multisig wallet in Electrum. The first signature is yours. The second signature is done via a hardware wallet like Trezor. Clone that Trezor as many times as you want with the recovery seed. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-07T09:11:14.767Z
2017-10-07T09:11:14.767Z
Andrew Field
<p>No, but instead you can make a 3-of-4 multisig where you hold both keys A and B, then you give key C to a family member, and D to someone else(just as an example). This way you are certain that you are involved in all transactions. I presume this is the end result you are after?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-08T12:34:19.037Z
That works and makes sense.
Jay Stevens
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-07T09:16:13.733Z
no need the "D" key. just 3-of-4 of (A+A+B+C)
amaclin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-08T19:41:08.923Z
ahh, very clever amaclin
m1xolyd1an
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-27T02:57:27.017Z
@amaclin Are you saying that sets of private keys in a multisig definition are not required to be unique? Is there is no limitation with regard to repeating a set of private keys in a multisig definition? So with a 3 of 4 wallet, A and B can both be the same set of private keys?
Guru Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-08T02:47:43.233Z
2017-02-08T02:47:43.233Z
m1xolyd1an
<p>Is it possible to make a multisig wallet that requires one of the keys specifically and any of the other ones in order to sign a transaction?</p>

<p>For example, let's say I have a 2-of-3 multisig that has signators A, B, and C. Can I make a multisig that requires that every transaction be signed by A specifically and then one of either of the other keys?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-07T08:56:00.397Z
why does this have the `nbitcoin` tag? looks unrelated
knocte
<script><multi-signature><miniscript>
Multisig where one of the keys specifically is required?
rosstripi
# Multisig where one of the keys specifically is required?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-02-08)

Is it possible to make a multisig wallet that requires one of the keys specifically and any of the other ones in order to sign a transaction?

For example, let's say I have a 2-of-3 multisig that has signators A, B, and C. Can I make a multisig that requires that every transaction be signed by A specifically and then one of either of the other keys?

**Tags:** script, multi-signature, miniscript

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: why does this have the `nbitcoin` tag? looks unrelated  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-02-08. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

No, but instead you can make a 3-of-4 multisig where you hold both keys A and B, then you give key C to a family member, and D to someone else(just as an example). This way you are certain that you are involved in all transactions. I presume this is the end result you are after?

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: That works and makes sense.  
> **username_7**: no need the "D" key. just 3-of-4 of (A+A+B+C)  
> **username_5**: ahh, very clever username_7  
> **username_3**: @username_7 Are you saying that sets of private keys in a multisig definition are not required to be unique? Is there is no limitation with regard to repeating a set of private keys in a multisig definition? So with a 3 of 4 wallet, A and B can both be the same set of private keys?  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-11-09. Score: 2

Yes, both of these policies achieve what you are trying to do.

`thresh(2,pk(A),or(pk(B),pk(C)))`

`thresh(2,pk(A),thresh(1,pk(B),pk(C)))`

Each of them use `thresh()` as defined [here](https://bitcoin.sipa.be/miniscript/):

> thresh(NUM,POL,POL,...): Require that NUM out of the following subpolicies are met (all combinations are assumed to be equally likely).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This link is broken. I am trying to setup a multisig wallet using Sparrow. I have tried entering these definitions in the Script Policy Description field but it is throwing an "Invalid output descriptor" error.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-10-07. Score: -1

There is another solution but it removes the ability to identify who signed the second transaction.
Create a 2 of 2 multisig wallet in Electrum. The first signature is yours. The second signature is done via a hardware wallet like Trezor. Clone that Trezor as many times as you want with the recovery seed.


---

