1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
|
Return-Path: <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2770F305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:18:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from server3 (server3.include7.ch [144.76.194.38])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBBB157
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:18:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server3 (Postfix, from userid 115)
id 5255E2E6063E; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:18:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from Jonass-MacBook-Pro-2.local (cable-static-140-182.teleport.ch
[87.102.140.182]) by server3 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97CA92D0002E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:18:29 +0200 (CEST)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org>
<90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:18:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final
Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:18:33 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="7OkxXjw4XcDkqMGoCFwif8uPXLDuKspAN"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final
Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130
References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org>
<90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
In-Reply-To: <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org>
--7OkxXjw4XcDkqMGoCFwif8uPXLDuKspAN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
> 6 - Finally, and most importantly, BIP39 seed phrases do not have a
> version number. Without a version number, how are you going to derive
> addresses from a BIP39 seed phrase, when wallets start to use to new
> derivation methods (such as SegWit, or Schnorr signatures)? Does it mea=
n
> that a BIP39 compatible wallet will have to check addresses from all th=
e
> derivation methods that ever existed in the past, in order to ensure
> that all coins are correctly retrieved? Or will there be users that
> cannot access their coins because their BIP39 seed phrase is too old fo=
r
> newer software?
I totally agree with Thomas.
Another thing that I think could be a BIP misdesign:
BIP44 Gap Limits
=46rom the BIP:
----------
"Address gap limit is currently set to 20. If the software hits 20
unused addresses in a row, it expects there are no used addresses beyond
this point and stops searching the address chain."
----------
* Does that mean, we do a transaction rescan back to the genesis block
for every 20 addresses?
* Or is it a prerequirement to do a wallet recovery after BIP44's to
have access to a full address-indexed blockchain?
Or maybe I'm missing something.
</jonas>
--7OkxXjw4XcDkqMGoCFwif8uPXLDuKspAN--
--UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=hGe6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--UOarbQuVKGHSe2BqPDJVoe6huqdHGvtU8--
|
