Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alternate HD path structure: BIP, blog, or wat?

[Matt Smith <matt@gem.co>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1760 bytes --]

> to avoid having an internal mapping from 9'-> 0' to find out what
> blockchain to query, this sounds like it should be trivial for any wallet.

Trivial to implement, a headache to *maintain*

But if a new platform is released on an existing blockchain, my wallet
doesn't need to know about the new magic number it claims in order to
handle it correctly.

Say I make a new token layer, BobCoin, which runs on bitcoin and say I
use an HD wallet and always generate new BobCoin token addresses as
m/##'/0'/808'/*'/*/*. If I import that wallet into older HD wallet
software that doesn't know anything about BobCoin, it will still:

- understand what blockchain to query for utxos on the addresses below
that path
- be able to generate valid BobCoin addresses without any updates

I think this is particularly valuable if you're developing against a
platform where updates can't be forced on clients.

To be clear: I am not suggesting this as a general-purpose successor to
BIP44.

–
Matt Smith | Gem
https://gem.co | GH: @thedoctor


On 6/19/15 5:57 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote:
>> m/##'/0'/99'/0'
>>
>> where 99 is the identifier for, say, counterparty
> 
> 
> What is stopping you from using m/44'/9'/a'/c/i as descibed here:
> http://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/slip-0044.html
> 
> to avoid having an internal mapping from 9'-> 0' to find out what
> blockchain to query, this sounds like it should be trivial for any wallet.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]