1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
|
Return-Path: <stick@satoshilabs.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7100025A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 13 May 2016 17:57:16 +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 D3EA8174
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 13 May 2016 17:57:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A13E4FF;
Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:12 +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 nn2NC5J3FPY2; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107])
by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3567E296;
Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.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>
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>
Message-ID: <57361577.7060207@satoshilabs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 19:57:11 +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: <CACq0ZD7mLCaoGpcVEp7NfW=6nsEA39tZp+G8oeySygMEyhuwQA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:57:16 -0000
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
|
