Message-ID: <53344C7C.7020407@gk2.sk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:06:20 +0100
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>	<F2C8C044-EF92-4CCE-9235-28CA7FCE3526@bitsofproof.com>	<CAJHLa0PPAsBLgsy0vgPpUp=UzeR_fWUEzFb5+xtmODEk4MGPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
Precedence: list

On 03/27/2014 04:57 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is
> unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for
> Litecoin, etc...).  This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins,
> and also supports Testnet cases well.  Maybe there are some alts without
> such a magic number that might prevent that?

That magic number is something I find very unfortunate and superflous in
BIP-32 design. Its only purpose is to distinguish BIP-32 trees for
various altcoins, but it doesn't make sense at all once you start
storing various altcoins in the same tree using the proposed
/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n scheme.

I would love to see that removed from BIP-32 and use always
0x0488B21E/0x0488ADE4 (xpub/xpriv), but that is for different discussion
I guess.

-- 
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>