Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7100025A for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:57:16 +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 D3EA8174 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:57:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A13E4FF; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:12 +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 nn2NC5J3FPY2; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3567E296; Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:11 +0000 (UTC) To: Aaron Voisine References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> <5735EC17.5040901@satoshilabs.com> <5735FC99.5090001@satoshilabs.com> From: Pavol Rusnak Message-ID: <57361577.7060207@satoshilabs.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 19:57:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:57:16 -0000 On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron Voisine wrote: > This scheme is independent of the number of accounts. It works with BIP44 > as well as BIP43 purpose 0, or any other BIP43 purpose/layout. Instead of > overloading the account index to indicate the type of address, you use the > chain index, which is already being used to indicate what the specific > address chain is to be used for, i.e. receive vs change addresses. I see the advantage here. But there is a major problem here. We came up with BIP44 so a wallet can claim it is BIP44 compatible and you can be 100% sure that you can migrate accounts from one wallet implementation to another. This was not previously possible when a wallet claimed it is BIP32 compatible. Now we have a similar problem. When there is a BIP44 wallet, does it mean it supports segwit or not? For this reason I would like to see another BIPXX for segwit, so a wallet can claim it is BIP44, BIP44+BIPXX or BIPXX compatible and you'll know what other wallets are compatible with it. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol "stick" Rusnak SatoshiLabs.com