MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57361577.7060207@satoshilabs.com>
References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> <5735EC17.5040901@satoshilabs.com>
	<CACq0ZD4BvvCryYmO-J9Rof-ogQJ1wNLgmUEU596nuTH=-U8Hag@mail.gmail.com>
	<5735FC99.5090001@satoshilabs.com>
	<CACq0ZD7mLCaoGpcVEp7NfW=6nsEA39tZp+G8oeySygMEyhuwQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57361577.7060207@satoshilabs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:42:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD7BUaMnRgpx0ZxZu1Ok5weiJ9tbZnyFpXEHsTi==V_t_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>, Sutch Sam <Sam@breadwallet.com>, 
	James MacWhyte <james@breadwallet.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03448831ba290532c026ae
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bip44 extension for P2SH/P2WSH/...
Precedence: list

--94eb2c03448831ba290532c026ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

That's a valid concern, but I don't see the conflict here. In order to
recover funds from a wallet conforming to BIPXX, you must have wallet
software that handles BIPXX. Simply making BIPXX backwards compatible with
previously created BIP44 or BIP43 purpose 0 wallets doesn't change this at
all.


Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet <http://breadwallet.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>
wrote:

> On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > This scheme is independent of the number of accounts. It works with BIP44
> > as well as BIP43 purpose 0, or any other BIP43 purpose/layout. Instead of
> > overloading the account index to indicate the type of address, you use
> the
> > chain index, which is already being used to indicate what the specific
> > address chain is to be used for, i.e. receive vs change addresses.
>
> I see the advantage here. But there is a major problem here.
>
> We came up with BIP44 so a wallet can claim it is BIP44 compatible and
> you can be 100% sure that you can migrate accounts from one wallet
> implementation to another. This was not previously possible when a
> wallet claimed it is BIP32 compatible.
>
> Now we have a similar problem. When there is a BIP44 wallet, does it
> mean it supports segwit or not? For this reason I would like to see
> another BIPXX for segwit, so a wallet can claim it is BIP44, BIP44+BIPXX
> or BIPXX compatible and you'll know what other wallets are compatible
> with it.
>
> --
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol "stick" Rusnak
> SatoshiLabs.com
>

--94eb2c03448831ba290532c026ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">That&#39;s a valid concern, but I don&#39;t see the confli=
ct here. In order to recover funds from a wallet conforming to BIPXX, you m=
ust have wallet software that handles BIPXX. Simply making BIPXX backwards =
compatible with previously created BIP44 or BIP43 purpose 0 wallets doesn&#=
39;t change this at all.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all">=
<div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">=
<div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-founder and CEO<b=
r><a href=3D"http://breadwallet.com" target=3D"_blank">breadwallet</a></div=
></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Pavol Rusn=
ak <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:stick@satoshilabs.com" target=3D=
"_blank">stick@satoshilabs.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron Voisine wrote:<br>
&gt; This scheme is independent of the number of accounts. It works with BI=
P44<br>
&gt; as well as BIP43 purpose 0, or any other BIP43 purpose/layout. Instead=
 of<br>
&gt; overloading the account index to indicate the type of address, you use=
 the<br>
&gt; chain index, which is already being used to indicate what the specific=
<br>
&gt; address chain is to be used for, i.e. receive vs change addresses.<br>
<br>
</span>I see the advantage here. But there is a major problem here.<br>
<br>
We came up with BIP44 so a wallet can claim it is BIP44 compatible and<br>
you can be 100% sure that you can migrate accounts from one wallet<br>
implementation to another. This was not previously possible when a<br>
wallet claimed it is BIP32 compatible.<br>
<br>
Now we have a similar problem. When there is a BIP44 wallet, does it<br>
mean it supports segwit or not? For this reason I would like to see<br>
another BIPXX for segwit, so a wallet can claim it is BIP44, BIP44+BIPXX<br=
>
or BIPXX compatible and you&#39;ll know what other wallets are compatible<b=
r>
with it.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<br>
Best Regards / S pozdravom,<br>
<br>
Pavol &quot;stick&quot; Rusnak<br>
SatoshiLabs.com<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c03448831ba290532c026ae--