Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.180; envelope-from=ematiu@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f180.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP37dO53Jp2rXpPqO3eMd6AWamtXaReq0arMfC=uY2aFUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<53340999.807@gmx.de>
	<CAJna-HhmFya+3W67qQt0wMhW=B4vJvwdkr-5WnU+KEaKq7uaUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5334144A.9040600@gmx.de>
	<CANEZrP37dO53Jp2rXpPqO3eMd6AWamtXaReq0arMfC=uY2aFUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:07:23 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+vKqYegtXZ5cLsWo1hOsqaexNRtwL-mm6u=D0rpD--VQJSRtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matias Alejo Garcia <ematiu@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
Precedence: list

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> By the way, I just noticed that greenaddress.it is creating seeds that ha=
ve 24
> words instead of 12. Does anyone know what's up with that? They claim to =
be
> using BIP32 wallets so I wanted to see if they were using the default str=
ucture
> and if so, whether bitcoinj was compatible with it (before I switch to th=
e one
> discussed here). But it seems we fall at the first hurdle ...
>

They replied this on reddit: "Good question! We use 256-bit BIP39
seeds for our 512-bit extended HD wallet keypairs, as advised by
BIP32. We are aware that 128 is considered ok in Electrum but we
wanted to follow BIP32 spec, in particular because we are working with
hardware wallets that have been design with BIP32 in mind and wanted
to avoid any incompatibility issue."

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/20puhg/while_blockchaininfo_is_dow=
n_what_about_testing/cg5mr54


BTW, thanks for starting this thread. I am with the bitcore team,
working on a new multisig only wallet (Cosign).

The schema originally proposed be Mike (/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/chan=
ge/n
) seems flexible enough for our needs. I wonder, tough, if we can
agree also on a format to exchange the tips (n) of each branch on the
tree when the user export/backup the wallet, as  Allen suggested.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
> For me, the most important thing is either we're 100% interoperable or
> 0%. There should not be anything inbetween, as users will delete seeds
> without knowing there is still money in them on another implementation.

Is the ideal schema that the user should be able to use two different
wallets at the same time? Does a wallet need to assume that derivate
keys could had been used already? That seems complicated. Maybe we
could add a  /(hash of the wallet name)/ on the BIP32 path.


--
matias


--=20
Mat=C3=ADas Alejo Garcia
Skype/Twitter: @ematiu
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads!