+Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]

+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)

+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

+ (envelope-from <stick@gk2.sk>) id 1WTCp8-0003es-Pt

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:34 +0000

+X-ACL-Warn:

+Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41])

+ by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)

+ (Exim 4.76) id 1WTCp5-0003II-DP

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:34 +0000

+Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t10so3106263eei.0

+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;

+ Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT)

+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;

+ d=1e100.net; s=20130820;

+ h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to

+ :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type

+ :content-transfer-encoding;

+ bh=0O3r1+6tjM/kGbVMryP7HKxELmGo+0Z+kVxxg1qylH0=;

+ b=jNWOh+RiStDrXFPFwf9yyLF8HGUwHPaMJY5rVjn5MFdQRnIQX5rPB0i/8Yq6qsWzIW

+ OJvc3E638xNOGVAXKgQ+FKWyOVUaKYvtUlwMMkIJxvz5DUQ4BgZrR+K7C1VMS5vXxP+7

+ k6SjFb1zPlrN17mGzTdDHjRep7vi+xwbdK3TeT6jpR3p0HmWZAMKd0oPL7axcle7hmyd

+ AYqFtlcIfws7vE4sK5XLPoo5kpF9Ex2RVohMGxenfVLHf4LwH2j0VEwWYKHCZrduFes4

+ 7SwYYYAkukiKQywvi2p5APvHvrO42uzaNkS+3dDfRGHA84JP7POcxbodK3Ntvd+pQZiB

+ RPlg==

+X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnhqKhzlMXNIIVoME8DqtfIu7PDoKrfVHfMgA0lOC/Lh5PkoKyJtw68dm7vABC5zIbDYlh1

+X-Received: by 10.15.34.197 with SMTP id e45mr747054eev.112.1395936383366;

+ Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:23 -0700 (PDT)

+Received: from tetra.site (nat-0-15.lam.cz. [80.92.242.254])

+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y7sm5263826eev.5.2014.03.27.09.06.21

+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+ (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);

+ Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT)

+Message-ID: <53344C7C.7020407@gk2.sk>

+Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:06:20 +0100

+From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>

+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;

+ rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com> <F2C8C044-EF92-4CCE-9235-28CA7FCE3526@bitsofproof.com> <CAJHLa0PPAsBLgsy0vgPpUp=UzeR_fWUEzFb5+xtmODEk4MGPVQ@mail.gmail.com>

+ <CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com>

+In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com>

+X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)

+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.

+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.

+X-Headers-End: 1WTCp5-0003II-DP

+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure

+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9

+Precedence: list

+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>

+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>

+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>

+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>

+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>

+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:34 -0000

+

+On 03/27/2014 04:57 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote:

+> Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is

+> unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for

+> Litecoin, etc...). This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins,

+> and also supports Testnet cases well. Maybe there are some alts without

+> such a magic number that might prevent that?

+

+That magic number is something I find very unfortunate and superflous in

+BIP-32 design. Its only purpose is to distinguish BIP-32 trees for

+various altcoins, but it doesn't make sense at all once you start

+storing various altcoins in the same tree using the proposed

+/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n scheme.

+

+I would love to see that removed from BIP-32 and use always

+0x0488B21E/0x0488ADE4 (xpub/xpriv), but that is for different discussion

+I guess.

+

+--

+Best Regards / S pozdravom,

+

+Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>

+

+