Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YIaoh-0001s0-8T for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:34:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YIaog-0000DZ-78 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:34:47 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YIaoZ-00038f-3J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:34:39 +0100 Received: from f052086198.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.86.198]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:34:39 +0100 Received: from andreas by f052086198.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:34:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:34:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <54CF74A5.3050304@gk2.sk> <54CF9016.5070206@gk2.sk> <54D014DB.50404@gk2.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052086198.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: <54D014DB.50404@gk2.sk> X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YIaog-0000DZ-78 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Export format for xpub X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:34:47 -0000 On 02/03/2015 01:22 AM, Pavol Rusnak wrote: > Hm, let me put the questions the other way around: > > What gap limit should a wallet use if it encounters h=bip32? It should follow the spec. I know BIP32-hierarchy is short on gap limits, which is why (amongst other reasons) I expect BIP32-hierarchy-based wallets migrate to a better standard at some time. > What h value should I use for myTREZOR wallets? Which is essentially a > BIP44 wallet that produces h=bip32 xpubs with gap limit 20 ... If it follows BIP32, h=bip32 is fine.