From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WTCp8-0003es-Pt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:34 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTCp5-0003II-DP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:34 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t10so3106263eei.0 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0O3r1+6tjM/kGbVMryP7HKxELmGo+0Z+kVxxg1qylH0=; b=jNWOh+RiStDrXFPFwf9yyLF8HGUwHPaMJY5rVjn5MFdQRnIQX5rPB0i/8Yq6qsWzIW OJvc3E638xNOGVAXKgQ+FKWyOVUaKYvtUlwMMkIJxvz5DUQ4BgZrR+K7C1VMS5vXxP+7 k6SjFb1zPlrN17mGzTdDHjRep7vi+xwbdK3TeT6jpR3p0HmWZAMKd0oPL7axcle7hmyd AYqFtlcIfws7vE4sK5XLPoo5kpF9Ex2RVohMGxenfVLHf4LwH2j0VEwWYKHCZrduFes4 7SwYYYAkukiKQywvi2p5APvHvrO42uzaNkS+3dDfRGHA84JP7POcxbodK3Ntvd+pQZiB RPlg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnhqKhzlMXNIIVoME8DqtfIu7PDoKrfVHfMgA0lOC/Lh5PkoKyJtw68dm7vABC5zIbDYlh1 X-Received: by 10.15.34.197 with SMTP id e45mr747054eev.112.1395936383366; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tetra.site (nat-0-15.lam.cz. [80.92.242.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y7sm5263826eev.5.2014.03.27.09.06.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53344C7C.7020407@gk2.sk> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:06:20 +0100 From: Pavol Rusnak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Dev References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1WTCp5-0003II-DP Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure 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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:34 -0000 On 03/27/2014 04:57 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote: > Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is > unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for > Litecoin, etc...). This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins, > and also supports Testnet cases well. Maybe there are some alts without > such a magic number that might prevent that? That magic number is something I find very unfortunate and superflous in BIP-32 design. Its only purpose is to distinguish BIP-32 trees for various altcoins, but it doesn't make sense at all once you start storing various altcoins in the same tree using the proposed /m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n scheme. I would love to see that removed from BIP-32 and use always 0x0488B21E/0x0488ADE4 (xpub/xpriv), but that is for different discussion I guess. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol Rusnak