Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123DA25A for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 16:11:10 +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 86CDFE8 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 16:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D0CE4FF; Fri, 13 May 2016 16:12:05 +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 B0z1qdaeIOb3; Fri, 13 May 2016 16:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107]) by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0458CE462; Fri, 13 May 2016 16:12:04 +0000 (UTC) To: Aaron Voisine , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> <5735EC17.5040901@satoshilabs.com> From: Pavol Rusnak Message-ID: <5735FC99.5090001@satoshilabs.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:11:05 +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=utf-8 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bip44 extension for P2SH/P2WSH/... 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: Fri, 13 May 2016 16:11:10 -0000 On 13/05/16 18:03, Aaron Voisine wrote: > I like the idea of specifying the type of address as a bit field flag. > 0x80000000 is already used to specify hardened derivation, so 0x40000000 > would be the next available to specify witness addresses. This is > compatible with existing accounts and wallet layouts. I think this is over-optimization. What is the advantage of m/0'/0x40000000 instead of m/whatever'/0 ? But this is off-topic anyway, as we are discussing multiple-accounts per wallet layout here, not one-account-per-wallet design. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol "stick" Rusnak SatoshiLabs.com