Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 690FD722 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:00:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.sldev.cz (mail.sldev.cz [51.254.7.247]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2276212F for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C77E589; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:01:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sldev.cz Received: from mail.sldev.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6RLuebV_GLk7; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44CECE462; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:01:39 +0000 (UTC) To: Daniel Weigl , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> From: Pavol Rusnak Message-ID: <5735EC17.5040901@satoshilabs.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:00:39 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bip44 extension for P2SH/P2WSH/... 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: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:00:44 -0000 On 13/05/16 15:16, Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 2) Define a new derivation path, parallel to Bip44, but a different 'purpose' (eg. ' instead of 44'). Let the user choose which account he want to add ("Normal account", "Witness account"). We had quite a long discussion in our team some time ago and we agreed on that option #2 is much better and we'd like to implement this way in myTREZOR. > +) Wallet needs only to take care of 1 address per public key True, if this BIP only supports P2WPKH. P2WSH should probably be handled by another account type and another BIP, anyway. > Has any Bip44 compliant wallet already done any integration at this point? We have something in the pipeline, but no visible results yet. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol "stick" Rusnak SatoshiLabs.com