Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9323C78D for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:07:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com (mail-lf0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 724B9A1 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id q132so9827188lfe.3 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:07:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mujtsPoWlbQeQ6Hhqyu8fTcBoHFxdi+qDgtILUVcI38=; b=QLAG5o/xOP4TYsgX4iIJ/XeH+Gl8E1RmcG++ZDcRitW7aelLR0Ux4uPcdxcioj5qWe ThJo/8wwJmXO7Ck/EfDEUlYlr3mtZlZtaLd+vYHEVQFdRFg0b/9WQqnGCK+j+vxGeFXE zWjXQ9Cy9AVjv7DA35+qH012GfsBbPKuiJwbL590o5t0f0izDs0M0pA+l9hc8/k5z1Fx dooOXVN4dcH1aODUo2rZ0c6wAbZU1xSubblSpajftetLiTxARLE5Tv+wXiZgFnB/DHHw mVK0lfzHeKDTerGRLQkVKT5I+Fdx0RfVk6sqLAvlpLFcr4l9Kh+rLZ4byrByPthDu8eI 0Arg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=mujtsPoWlbQeQ6Hhqyu8fTcBoHFxdi+qDgtILUVcI38=; b=c+/oWYbO7ASE3i0yxqoQ/1eCsPUCpTe/17f06GZFTa/U0S1iTyh6CZ8Ep1sVHsEZbW DI1+2vagpvpqapeoVvb6d5aA9HOwyneMi67+Ari1tOBzPq0pCx2xZzMZL3FK/zh2Gnwe 0Id5NRwdBD5AK1i/Yny8GnZWKqKqCGzrZzZ0G8hqCA3sKuKajJRgN7z8ktnnIGhbCozu Zkg7Zi5TZuCJeupCOVhP1TA7lFEu5rIuT34LSf85QSlaysLMuf4iNAuxnDDjHyAHNsqI tR3urUurKwW+MI4CokiSGi0LkJ6n4GvphP30MBrNlPFgRzolznllCSLZy+G0M8ThNQaG 9Olw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL73QJloH67TCybkxWl8/ZO95ARwB1N9n0aRxx6RXgOtSiUbQqxvwOiAx6HsRqDoMVUpmsyE+ND2yK2DA== X-Received: by 10.25.83.15 with SMTP id h15mr1324099lfb.81.1466230069507; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:07:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.26.72 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:07:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com> References: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com> From: Aaron Voisine Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:07:48 -0700 Message-ID: To: Daniel Weigl , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140683e73bd4b0535874afc X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts 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: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:07:52 -0000 --001a1140683e73bd4b0535874afc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This works for segwit version 1 with the addition of also using a different chain id. I presume that segwit version 2 will be implementing schnorr signatures. What do we know about the likely implementation details? Is there any way to avoid using a third derivation path to support it? Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi List, > > Following up to the discussion last month ( > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012695.html > ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here: > > > https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediawiki > > > Any comments on it? Does anyone working on a BIP44 compliant wallet > implement something different? > If there are no objection, id also like to request a number for it. > > Thx, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1140683e73bd4b0535874afc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This works for segwit version 1 with the addition of also = using a different chain id.=C2=A0

I presume that segwit = version 2 will be implementing schnorr signatures. What do we know about th= e likely implementation details? Is there any way to avoid using a third de= rivation path to support it?

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Daniel Weig= l via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg> wrote:
Hi List,

Following up to the discussion last month ( https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev= /2016-May/012695.html ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediaw= iki


Any comments on it? Does anyone working on a BIP44 compliant wallet impleme= nt something different?
If there are no objection, id also like to request a number for it.

Thx,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a1140683e73bd4b0535874afc--