MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56a0c721-4bae-7b99-0ca3-d0834756fc31@electrum.org>
References: <CA+_kfXJPfbGD6cDiPZ+7Z_rwUVS6JQNW8Vb-YsgD2wsPhHoBjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56a0c721-4bae-7b99-0ca3-d0834756fc31@electrum.org>
From: Kabuto Samourai <kabuto@samouraiwallet.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 08:47:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+_kfXLO-bBoRR5fZeXXFz-Vi1w+jTEcp3VRCBfKXgijAkysOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1a60069d891305588597e6"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: bip32 version bytes for segwit scripts
Precedence: list

--94eb2c1a60069d891305588597e6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that

Let's move forward with the simplest solution that solves the problem and
achieves consensus! Version bytes {x,y,z} fits the bill.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 05.09.2017 21:00, Kabuto Samourai wrote:
> >
> > The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub
> > both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes
> to
> > eliminate the ambiguity?
> >
>
> I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.
> However, fixing that now might be difficult.
>
> My "xyz" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy
> to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.
> However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to
> add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently
> allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than
> ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.
>
> In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess
> not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is
> useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will
> never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a
> P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as
> strong.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


-- 
-Kabuto

PGP Fingerprint: 1A83 4A96 EDE7 E286 2C5A  B065 320F B934 A79B 6A99

--94eb2c1a60069d891305588597e6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">In addition, co=
nsensus might be more difficult to reach on that</span><div><br></div><div>=
<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"></span>Let&#39;s move forward with the sim=
plest solution that solves the problem and achieves consensus! Version byte=
s {x,y,z} fits the bill.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitc=
oin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
<br>
On 05.09.2017 21:00, Kabuto Samourai wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and z=
pub<br>
&gt; both list &quot;P2PKH or P2SH.&quot; Why not expand the number of vers=
ion prefixes to<br>
&gt; eliminate the ambiguity?<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</span>I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.=
<br>
However, fixing that now might be difficult.<br>
<br>
My &quot;xyz&quot; proposal extends the current format in a way that is ver=
y easy<br>
to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.<br>
However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to<br>
add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently<br>
allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than<br>
ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.<br>
<br>
In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess<br=
>
not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is<br>
useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will<br>
never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a<br>
P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as<br>
strong.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">______________________________<wbr>=
_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">-Kabuto</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div=
><font size=3D"1">PGP Fingerprint:=C2=A01A83 4A96 EDE7 E286 2C5A =C2=A0B065=
 320F B934 A79B 6A99</font></div></div></div></div>
</div>

--94eb2c1a60069d891305588597e6--