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
|
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 CFF22BC2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:00:09 +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 59F4B41D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:00:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D43E5C1;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:20:21 +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 Jnum0okA_5MS; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:20:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107])
by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51F87E372;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:20:21 +0000 (UTC)
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0d405f5d-c0a4-bad7-b6c3-08ba4424bf17@satoshilabs.com>
<8b4831a4-791e-c03e-baa4-16d9e5ead442@electrum.org>
<84f4a4b8-fcbd-433b-9556-174ec5475f61@satoshilabs.com>
<oos72e$rjp$1@blaine.gmane.org>
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>
Message-ID: <40ed03a1-915c-33b0-c4ac-e898c8c733ba@satoshilabs.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:00:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <oos72e$rjp$1@blaine.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Extended serialization format for
BIP-32 wallets
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:00:09 -0000
On 07/09/17 21:35, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In case of Bitcoin Wallet, the depth is not null (m/0'/[0,1]) and still
> we need this field.
But the depth of exported public key will be null. It does not make
sense to export xpub for m or m/0' for your particular case.
> I think it should always be present if a chain is
> limited to a certain script type.
I am fine with having the path there all the time.
> There is however the case where even on one chain, script types are
> mixed. In this case the field should be omitted and the wallet needs to
> scan for all (known) types. Afaik Bitcoin Core is taking this path.
Is that really the case? Why come up with a hierarchy and then don't use it?
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol "stick" Rusnak
CTO, SatoshiLabs
|
