From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27ED826C for ; Sat, 14 May 2016 12:15:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95F0A18A for ; Sat, 14 May 2016 12:15:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a17so67748176wme.0 for ; Sat, 14 May 2016 05:15:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xSyZwolY/RY28ZrCnjO6l4b9oKMCZSl9COxOnvLRDU8=; b=wrRUN24hoyueN8JavBTxEUIMUvDYDgXLpBo1g+Qi3X8DegM/X5PM2o7FKUlRwC28lE pTyiQXR7gXw4vQssg7LITX/EwGIu/gpGW5QHaoDVqG7JQJ+5sB6rYKz/fJHsBrktnIoi t7csONAqOSgfj9/LLEjWKpGlH7ATbLDeGvSTmaSZ3/WQCZxvQCM52kQn4tSmm/eLduMB 8bRUyevBzwYP3j9OrL0x4YPDHDryisYcWSC6shDBqGJ9+U4dQMdkVBSEsDLVTTme0R9a +nsGz6xBiVyo7kan2xqli2m81b/j5DEW+M06rwIh3KGkbLFWgCuUB/877+707EE2dP4T RpBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xSyZwolY/RY28ZrCnjO6l4b9oKMCZSl9COxOnvLRDU8=; b=b+VF/WNixtGiANcNS4tgSqmTfbnnnYuEmZ0LHuWIEtZZtmiRaqewTlz3bw2Mm7zS1j xn/q/Ozl9uY2guu2NO4cwfVwb4MvlbhNsl04Blj8kkO35vJQYNrt9QWPK6tYJJTJYwDw G2NG+PCgEuN+vN7JoPc9inlTHgY0hNmyQymWSc9lU+y2TsAdo9PDaSNJ7jDiQ41RcRjA Gu7j3fZJI6KTYSilfPQJtycQbb7ovR/4d8SOgPllbfSgsW+8QNEKkYolISBGUgMe/22Q Y/dTTfCdi6+37MPcZczsiCErQMrGKKg8rnS4pHkRkbZHcUll995nF/g8FfMOfqpC3p18 1Rlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW7jTuQ6Wo3+1Wt4iU019RVTP13H/5nYXIiSplm5dSE6AaJFwS3Hs+JJ9dBZ5QmRA== X-Received: by 10.28.213.1 with SMTP id m1mr8586881wmg.103.1463228119245; Sat, 14 May 2016 05:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4dd0:ff00:8a0a:c68e:8fff:fef3:22ad? ([2001:4dd0:ff00:8a0a:c68e:8fff:fef3:22ad]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 8sm8115060wms.14.2016.05.14.05.15.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 May 2016 05:15:17 -0700 (PDT) To: Daniel Weigl , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> From: Jochen Hoenicke Message-ID: <573716D4.3000108@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 14:15:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bip44 extension for P2SH/P2WSH/... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 12:15:21 -0000 Am 13.05.2016 um 15:16 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev: > > With SegWit approaching it would make sense to define a common derivation scheme how BIP44 compatible wallets will handle P2(W)SH (and later on P2WPKH) receiving addresses. > I was thinking about starting a BIP for it, but I wanted to get some feedback from other wallets devs first. > The discussion so far shows that starting a new BIP is a very good idea. Otherwise everyone would do it slightly different. With P2(W)SH you mean P2WPKH embedded in P2SH, right? P2WSH is completely different and used for example for multisig. > In my opinion there are two(?) different options: To summarize, option 1 means one account that supports both non-segwit and segwit addresses. With option 2 you have one p2pkh-only account and one segwit-only account, which are completely separated. I personally would vote for option 1. Scanning twice the addresses can be avoided with Aaron's trick. The second disadvantage remains: > -) If you have the same xPub/xPriv key in different wallets, you need to be sure both take care for the different address types A non-segwit wallet would ignore all segwit outputs, which means that the balance it shows is smaller (and it doesn't show transactions that spend from previous segwit outputs). I don't see that this can lead to losing money except maybe when sweeping the account with a p2pkh-only wallet and then throwing the xprv away. Of course, you can also do option 2 and let it appear to the user as if it was only one account, but what is the advantage over option 1 in that case? Also you need two xpubs to watch this joined account. Jochen