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
|
Return-Path: <Daniel.Weigl@mycelium.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8E9F7AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:53:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx.mycelium.com (mx.mycelium.com [188.40.34.2])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C4490
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:53:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 88-117-110-132.adsl.highway.telekom.at ([88.117.110.132]
helo=[10.0.0.77])
by mx.mycelium.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
(Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <Daniel.Weigl@mycelium.com>)
id 1bD8S8-00045T-R1; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:53:46 +0200
To: Jochen Hoenicke <hoenicke@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com> <57612D67.9080007@gmail.com>
From: Daniel Weigl <Daniel.Weigl@mycelium.com>
Message-ID: <576133A7.6070004@mycelium.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:53:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57612D67.9080007@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -101.0 (---------------------------------------------------)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
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] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for
P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:53:32 -0000
Hello Jochen,
> I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses
> but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these
[...]
> BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is
> simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require.
[...]
> E.g., 0,1 for
> P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH. I see no reason why a
Thats a good point and should be simple to maintain. Yes, ill extend on that part.
The problem is, we dont have a final decision how the address encoding for P2WPKH
public keys should look like. Or do we? Bip141 is "Status: Deferred"
But for now, I can at least include the public key derivation path.
> I see no reason why a
> wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead
> of native P2WPKH, though.
That would be a big privacy leak, imo. As soon as both outputs are spent, its visible
which one was the P2WPKH-in-P2SH and which one the pure P2WPKH and as a consequence
you leak which output was the change and which one the actual sent output
So, i'd suggest to even make it a requirement for "normal" send-to-single-address transactions
to always use the same output type for the change output (if the wallet is able to recognize it)
Daniel
On 2016-06-15 12:26, Jochen Hoenicke wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> Am 14.06.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev:
>> Hi List,
>>
>> Following up to the discussion last month ( https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012695.html ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here:
>>
>> https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediawiki
>>
>>
>> Any comments on it? Does anyone working on a BIP44 compliant wallet implement something different?
>> If there are no objection, id also like to request a number for it.
>
> thank you for going forward with this. Should we keep the discussion on
> the list, or should we make it on github?
>
> I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses
> but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these
> two kinds of segwit addresses and forcing the user to have several
> different accounts for each BIP, the idea would be that every fully
> BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is
> simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require.
>
> I would go with the suggestion from Aaron Voisine to use different chain
> id's to distinguish between different address types. E.g., 0,1 for
> P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH. I see no reason why a
> wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead
> of native P2WPKH, though.
>
> Jochen
>
|
