Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1681974 for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:21:08 +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 864D463 for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33471E669; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:21:52 +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 Eipc2R3W5GJn; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D4C4E668; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:21:51 +0000 (UTC) To: Marek Palatinus , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <5717AF19.1030102@gmail.com> From: Pavol Rusnak Message-ID: <572FBBCE.3040306@satoshilabs.com> Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 00:21:02 +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=windows-1252 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 08 May 2016 22:31:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Proposal to update BIP-32 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 22:21:08 -0000 On 08/05/16 15:48, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote: > unambiguously be used to refer to an idea. My suggestion would be to write > a new BIP that overrides parts of BIP32, and then put a note in BIP32 that > a better mechanism is available that is unlikely to change things in > reality for the secp256k1 curve. I guess, we'll write that down to SLIP-0032 then. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol "stick" Rusnak SatoshiLabs.com