Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1501E412 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:12:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:30:02 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx.mycelium.com (mx.mycelium.com [188.40.34.2]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BC091A0 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 178-189-179-206.adsl.highway.telekom.at ([178.189.179.206] helo=[10.0.0.77]) by mx.mycelium.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bhZNB-0005tQ-KV for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:42:29 +0200 To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com> From: Daniel Weigl Message-ID: <516ecb1e-d8a8-719d-629b-59af808c1b6b@mycelium.com> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:42:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -101.0 (---------------------------------------------------) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] [cont'd] 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: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 10:12:34 -0000 Hello again, sorry, got a bit derailed on that proposal. But now I think its time to work on it again. - Any objections to get a BIP-number for it? If not, can I get one, so I can finish up the test vectors. Current version: https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediawiki - I decided against extending it for future P2WPKH addresses I think that should be a separate account on its own, to reduce implementation work for future wallets, that only want/need to implement P2WPKH accounts. And to keep it simple. Was someone working on the P2WPKH address format in the meantime? (ie. alternative for [2]) - We will also need a extension to the BIP32 serialization format[1] It should be possible to export/import a xPriv/xPub key across compatible wallets, and they should be able without guesswork, fuzzy checks or asking the user to import the correct account type. Thinking about some flexible tag-based backwards compatible extensions - but thats a different BIP in itself. Cheers, Daniel [1] https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki#Serialization_format [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki On 2016-06-14 17:41, Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev 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 >