public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Smith <matt@gem.co>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alternate HD path structure: BIP, blog, or wat?
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:40:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5584D2B4.6040501@gem.co> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5584BA85.3050008@petersson.at>

[-- 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 --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-20  2:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-19 20:42 [Bitcoin-development] Alternate HD path structure: BIP, blog, or wat? Matt Smith
2015-06-19 21:25 ` Matt @ Envrin Group
2015-06-19 23:31   ` Matt Smith
2015-06-20  0:57     ` Andreas Petersson
2015-06-20  2:40       ` Matt Smith [this message]
2015-06-20  1:58     ` Matt @ Envrin Group
2015-06-20 10:11 ` Jonas Schnelli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5584D2B4.6040501@gem.co \
    --to=matt@gem.co \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox