To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org>
	<90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:18:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
	Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final
 Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="7OkxXjw4XcDkqMGoCFwif8uPXLDuKspAN"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final
 Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130
References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org>
 <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
In-Reply-To: <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>

--7OkxXjw4XcDkqMGoCFwif8uPXLDuKspAN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

> 6 - Finally, and most importantly, BIP39 seed phrases do not have a
> version number. Without a version number, how are you going to derive
> addresses from a BIP39 seed phrase, when wallets start to use to new
> derivation methods (such as SegWit, or Schnorr signatures)? Does it mea=
n
> that a BIP39 compatible wallet will have to check addresses from all th=
e
> derivation methods that ever existed in the past, in order to ensure
> that all coins are correctly retrieved? Or will there be users that
> cannot access their coins because their BIP39 seed phrase is too old fo=
r
> newer software?

I totally agree with Thomas.

Another thing that I think could be a BIP misdesign:

BIP44 Gap Limits
=46rom the BIP:

----------
  "Address gap limit is currently set to 20. If the software hits 20
unused addresses in a row, it expects there are no used addresses beyond
this point and stops searching the address chain."
----------

* Does that mean, we do a transaction rescan back to the genesis block
for every 20 addresses?
* Or is it a prerequirement to do a wallet recovery after BIP44's to
have access to a full address-indexed blockchain?

Or maybe I'm missing something.

</jonas>


--7OkxXjw4XcDkqMGoCFwif8uPXLDuKspAN--

--UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=hGe6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8--