MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57373157.9090408@satoshilabs.com>
References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> <nh6ieb$tq0$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<57373157.9090408@satoshilabs.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 10:09:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD6oRFDNJNTD8pJOQaJ=h_OcMpNXBTf1s5p00r107sN=hQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cc9781a616a0532d0750c
Cc: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bip44 extension for P2SH/P2WSH/...
Precedence: list

--001a113cc9781a616a0532d0750c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On 14/05/16 09:00, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > The whole idea of BIP43 (which BIP44 bases on) is that how these BIPs
> > define balance retrieval never changes. This is to make sure you always
> > see the same balance on "same BIP" wallets (and same seed of course).
>
> This! Thanks Andreas for formulating my thought that I was not able to
> articulate earlier.
>

Indeed, this would still be the case when using a new BIPXX to define
adding segwit chains to what were previously BIP43/44 wallets. In this case
retrieval of a BIP44 wallet remains exactly the same as it did before. A
BIP44 wallet can still be recovered with any BIP44 compatible wallet
software. After you upgrade an existing BIP44 wallet to a BIPXX wallet, now
it is no longer a BIP44 wallet. It is now a BIPXX wallet, and can only be
recovered using BIPXX compatible wallet software.

If you are concerned about making a new BIP that fits in the BIP43
framework, i.e. a new purpose number, there's no reason this can't also be
done. You could create a new purpose number YY. Wallets that follow BIPYY
look just like BIPXX, except that they may only contain segwit address
chains, no standard P2PKH address chains.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> AFAIK: Bip39 import (cross-wallet) is not supported by Schildbachs
> android wallet [1] and Electrum [2] and Breadwallet [3].


Breadwallet is BIP39, with the BIP43 purpose 0 derivation path, and I
believe Schlindbachs is as well. Electrum has their own format. I don't
know if it also supports sweeping other mnemonics and wallet layouts.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet <http://breadwallet.com/>

--001a113cc9781a616a0532d0750c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-=
dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-wi=
dth:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 14/05/16 09:00, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoi=
n-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; The whole idea of BIP43 (which BIP44 bases on) is that how these BIPs<=
br>
&gt; define balance retrieval never changes. This is to make sure you alway=
s<br>
&gt; see the same balance on &quot;same BIP&quot; wallets (and same seed of=
 course).<br>
<br>
</span>This! Thanks Andreas for formulating my thought that I was not able =
to<br>
articulate earlier.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed, this would =
still be the case when using a new BIPXX to define adding segwit chains to =
what were previously BIP43/44 wallets. In this case retrieval of a BIP44 wa=
llet remains exactly the same as it did before. A BIP44 wallet can still be=
 recovered with any BIP44 compatible wallet software. After you upgrade an =
existing BIP44 wallet to a BIPXX wallet, now it is no longer a BIP44 wallet=
. It is now a BIPXX wallet, and can only be recovered using BIPXX compatibl=
e wallet software.</div><div><br></div><div>If you are concerned about maki=
ng a new BIP that fits in the BIP43 framework, i.e. a new purpose number, t=
here&#39;s no reason this can&#39;t also be done. You could create a new pu=
rpose number YY. Wallets that follow BIPYY look just like BIPXX, except tha=
t they may only contain segwit address chains, no standard P2PKH address ch=
ains.</div><div><br></div><div>On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Jonas Schne=
lli via bitcoin-dev=C2=A0<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt;</span>=C2=A0wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">AFAIK: Bip39 impor=
t (cross-wallet) is not supported by Schildbachs<br>android wallet [1] and =
Electrum [2] and Breadwallet [3].</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Breadwall=
et is BIP39, with the BIP43 purpose 0 derivation path, and I believe Schlin=
dbachs is as well. Electrum has their own format. I don&#39;t know if it al=
so supports sweeping other mnemonics and wallet layouts.</div></div><div><b=
r></div><div><div>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-founder and CEO<br><a href=3D"=
http://breadwallet.com/" target=3D"_blank">breadwallet</a></div></div></div=
></div></div>

--001a113cc9781a616a0532d0750c--