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
|
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 94776256
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 May 2016 12:08:19 +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 C924D141
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 May 2016 12:08:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 193-83-255-150.adsl.highway.telekom.at ([193.83.255.150]
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 1b1uqS-0008IS-B3 for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Sun, 15 May 2016 14:08:28 +0200
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> <5735EC17.5040901@satoshilabs.com>
<CACq0ZD4BvvCryYmO-J9Rof-ogQJ1wNLgmUEU596nuTH=-U8Hag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Weigl <Daniel.Weigl@mycelium.com>
Message-ID: <573866AE.9070205@mycelium.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:08:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD4BvvCryYmO-J9Rof-ogQJ1wNLgmUEU596nuTH=-U8Hag@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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] 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: Sun, 15 May 2016 12:08:19 -0000
Hi,
> 0x40000000 would be the next available to specify witness addresses.
> This is compatible with existing accounts and wallet layouts.
my main concern here is that
-) every Bip<this-bip>-compatible wallet in the future will have to implement all (then probably) legacy derivation and tx schemes.
-) it does not fail in a deterministic way, if I import a seed or xPriv/xPub across different capable wallets.
It is more visible if one account has [no funds/does not show up] at all after an import than if something shows up but you need to make sure that the balance is what you might expect.
Daniel/Mycelium
On 2016-05-13 18:03, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> We use the default BIP32 wallet layout, mentioned in BIP43 as purpose
> "0". We were thinking of of having 4 chains below the "account"
> level, the original 0 and 1 for receive and change addresses, and
> then 0x40000000 and 0x40000001 for P2WPKH-in-P2SH versions of receive
> and change addresses.
>
> I like the idea of specifying the type of address as a bit field
> flag. 0x80000000 is already used to specify hardened derivation, so
> 0x40000000 would be the next available to specify witness addresses.
> This is compatible with existing accounts and wallet layouts.
>
> As Daniel mentioned, the downside is that trying to recover on
> non-segwit software will miss segwit receives, however it does avoid
> the problem of having to check multiple address types for each key.
>
> Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet
> <http://breadwallet.com>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> On 13/05/16 15:16, Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> 2) Define a new derivation path, parallel to Bip44, but a different
>> 'purpose' (eg. <BipNumber-of-this-BIP>' instead of 44'). Let the
>> user choose which account he want to add ("Normal account",
>> "Witness account").
>
> We had quite a long discussion in our team some time ago and we
> agreed on that option #2 is much better and we'd like to implement
> this way in myTREZOR.
>
>> +) Wallet needs only to take care of 1 address per public key
>
> True, if this BIP only supports P2WPKH.
>
> P2WSH should probably be handled by another account type and another
> BIP, anyway.
>
>> Has any Bip44 compliant wallet already done any integration at this
>> point?
>
> We have something in the pipeline, but no visible results yet.
>
> -- Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol "stick" Rusnak SatoshiLabs.com
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
|
