Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186F5898 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:34:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:18:34 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from slow1-d.mail.gandi.net (slow1-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.86]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C591F0 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.198]) by slow1-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBA247A56C for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:07:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 178.19.221.38 Received: from [10.10.42.98] (unknown [178.19.221.38]) (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 000DFFB8BC for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:07:24 +0200 (CEST) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <8088fa79-8e77-8663-afb4-800a405a6182@chainside.net> From: Thomas Voegtlin Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:07:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8088fa79-8e77-8663-afb4-800a405a6182@chainside.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal for Lightning-oriented multiaccount multisig HD wallets X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:34:21 -0000 On 29.08.2017 12:19, Simone Bronzini via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 2. SegWit addresses: > since mixing SegWit and non-SegWit addresses on the same BIP44 structure > could lead to UTXOs not being completely recognised by old wallets, > BIP49 was proposed to separate the key space. This will lead to old UTXOs not being recognized by NEW wallets, because at some point new wallets will not care about implementing old standards. The only way to address this is to get out of bip39 and bip43, and to include a version number in the mnemonic seed.