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
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>) id 1WTCwD-000658-PN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:13:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.172;
envelope-from=allen.piscitello@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yk0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WTCwC-0004S9-HC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:13:53 +0000
Received: by mail-yk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 200so2507913ykr.17
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.100.226 with SMTP id z62mr2541125yhf.111.1395936827045;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.88.10 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53344C7C.7020407@gk2.sk>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>
<F2C8C044-EF92-4CCE-9235-28CA7FCE3526@bitsofproof.com>
<CAJHLa0PPAsBLgsy0vgPpUp=UzeR_fWUEzFb5+xtmODEk4MGPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com>
<53344C7C.7020407@gk2.sk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:13:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJfRnm79ho7anNZCPmMgDOaYBZkS0jez8Xcrh7GJHRJFheJB8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b69cdb47d3104f598de28
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(allen.piscitello[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WTCwC-0004S9-HC
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:13:53 -0000
--20cf301b69cdb47d3104f598de28
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
The idea was to use the magic number as the source for cointype. If it's
too big, as Tamas showed, perhaps a hash of it, and for coins without a
magic number, a hash of their name (or some unique identifier).
That being said, I agree with Andreas that something that is 90%
inter-operable seems very dangerous and will give people false expectations
when they miss the corner cases. If the structure isn't going to be shared
completely and have all support shared, having it completely incompatible
along with a mechanism for converting part of it to another wallet seems
superior. The worst types of losses will occur when someone tests out
something with a limited use case, sees that it appears to work, makes
dangerous assumptions, then gets burned when it's too late.
-Allen
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk> wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 04:57 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> > Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is
> > unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for
> > Litecoin, etc...). This seems like a good candidate for identifying
> coins,
> > and also supports Testnet cases well. Maybe there are some alts without
> > such a magic number that might prevent that?
>
> That magic number is something I find very unfortunate and superflous in
> BIP-32 design. Its only purpose is to distinguish BIP-32 trees for
> various altcoins, but it doesn't make sense at all once you start
> storing various altcoins in the same tree using the proposed
> /m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n scheme.
>
> I would love to see that removed from BIP-32 and use always
> 0x0488B21E/0x0488ADE4 (xpub/xpriv), but that is for different discussion
> I guess.
>
> --
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--20cf301b69cdb47d3104f598de28
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">The idea was to use the magic number as the source for coi=
ntype. =A0If it's too big, as Tamas showed, perhaps a hash of it, and f=
or coins without a magic number, a hash of their name (or some unique ident=
ifier).<div>
<br></div><div>That being said, I agree with Andreas that something that is=
90% inter-operable seems very dangerous and will give people false expecta=
tions when they miss the corner cases. =A0If the structure isn't going =
to be shared completely and have all support shared, having it completely i=
ncompatible along with a mechanism for converting part of it to another wal=
let seems superior. =A0The worst types of losses will occur when someone te=
sts out something with a limited use case, sees that it appears to work, ma=
kes dangerous assumptions, then gets burned when it's too late.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Allen</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Pavol Rusnak <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:stick@gk2.sk" target=3D"_blank">stick@=
gk2.sk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">On 03/27/2014 04:57 PM, Alle=
n Piscitello wrote:<br>
> Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned tha=
t is<br>
> unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for=
<br>
> Litecoin, etc...). =A0This seems like a good candidate for identifying=
coins,<br>
> and also supports Testnet cases well. =A0Maybe there are some alts wit=
hout<br>
> such a magic number that might prevent that?<br>
<br>
</div>That magic number is something I find very unfortunate and superflous=
in<br>
BIP-32 design. Its only purpose is to distinguish BIP-32 trees for<br>
various altcoins, but it doesn't make sense at all once you start<br>
storing various altcoins in the same tree using the proposed<br>
/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n scheme.<br>
<br>
I would love to see that removed from BIP-32 and use always<br>
0x0488B21E/0x0488ADE4 (xpub/xpriv), but that is for different discussion<br=
>
I guess.<br>
<div class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br>
--<br>
Best Regards / S pozdravom,<br>
<br>
Pavol Rusnak <<a href=3D"mailto:stick@gk2.sk">stick@gk2.sk</a>><br>
<br>
</div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">-----------------------------=
-------------------------------------------------<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--20cf301b69cdb47d3104f598de28--
|
