From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:17:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo7w9mSEDZ2Qf4i79HpgOQQjr2+Cyif4xbt=TKyDkvPdg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]
On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non-
> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
> > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
>
> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to
> that company in particular?
>
> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of
> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit.
The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_coin_types
It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of
having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to
maintain competing registries.
Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain
ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a
registry in the first place.
> --
> Justus Ranvier
> Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
> http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
> justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
> E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2331 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-05 11:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-30 17:53 [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 Justus Ranvier
2015-07-01 17:07 ` Kristov Atlas
2015-07-02 15:45 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-09-04 0:06 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-04 17:48 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-09-04 18:21 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-04 18:25 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-09-05 11:17 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-09-05 16:48 ` Christophe Biocca
2015-09-06 2:09 ` Jorge Timón
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='CABm2gDo7w9mSEDZ2Qf4i79HpgOQQjr2+Cyif4xbt=TKyDkvPdg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org \
/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