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 C8E9F7AA for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:53:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx.mycelium.com (mx.mycelium.com [188.40.34.2]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C4490 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:53:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 88-117-110-132.adsl.highway.telekom.at ([88.117.110.132] helo=[10.0.0.77]) by mx.mycelium.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bD8S8-00045T-R1; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:53:46 +0200 To: Jochen Hoenicke , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com> <57612D67.9080007@gmail.com> From: Daniel Weigl Message-ID: <576133A7.6070004@mycelium.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:53:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57612D67.9080007@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -101.0 (---------------------------------------------------) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts 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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:53:32 -0000 Hello Jochen, > I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses > but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these [...] > BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is > simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require. [...] > E.g., 0,1 for > P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH. I see no reason why a Thats a good point and should be simple to maintain. Yes, ill extend on that part. The problem is, we dont have a final decision how the address encoding for P2WPKH public keys should look like. Or do we? Bip141 is "Status: Deferred" But for now, I can at least include the public key derivation path. > I see no reason why a > wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead > of native P2WPKH, though. That would be a big privacy leak, imo. As soon as both outputs are spent, its visible which one was the P2WPKH-in-P2SH and which one the pure P2WPKH and as a consequence you leak which output was the change and which one the actual sent output So, i'd suggest to even make it a requirement for "normal" send-to-single-address transactions to always use the same output type for the change output (if the wallet is able to recognize it) Daniel On 2016-06-15 12:26, Jochen Hoenicke wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > Am 14.06.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev: >> Hi List, >> >> Following up to the discussion last month ( https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012695.html ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here: >> >> https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediawiki >> >> >> Any comments on it? Does anyone working on a BIP44 compliant wallet implement something different? >> If there are no objection, id also like to request a number for it. > > thank you for going forward with this. Should we keep the discussion on > the list, or should we make it on github? > > I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses > but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these > two kinds of segwit addresses and forcing the user to have several > different accounts for each BIP, the idea would be that every fully > BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is > simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require. > > I would go with the suggestion from Aaron Voisine to use different chain > id's to distinguish between different address types. E.g., 0,1 for > P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH. I see no reason why a > wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead > of native P2WPKH, though. > > Jochen >