Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal for Lightning-oriented multiaccount multisig HD wallets

[Simone Bronzini <simone.bronzini@chainside.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1375 bytes --]

> This will lead to old UTXOs not being recognized by NEW wallets, because
> at some point new wallets will not care about implementing old standards.

Your observations make perfect sense. That's exactly why we endorse
option b. in my previous email.

> The only way to address this is to get out of bip39 and bip43, and to
> include a version number in the mnemonic seed.

As for the idea of having a versioning on mnemonic seeds, I believe it
would be a very useful feature indeed. How about opening a new,
separate, topic about it?


On 30/08/17 12:07, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> On 29.08.2017 12:19, Simone Bronzini via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>> 2. SegWit addresses:
>> since mixing SegWit and non-SegWit addresses on the same BIP44 structure
>> could lead to UTXOs not being completely recognised by old wallets,
>> BIP49 was proposed to separate the key space. 
> This will lead to old UTXOs not being recognized by NEW wallets, because
> at some point new wallets will not care about implementing old standards.
>
> The only way to address this is to get out of bip39 and bip43, and to
> include a version number in the mnemonic seed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: 0xB2E60C73.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 15783 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 898 bytes --]