From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YIZrI-0007M1-Ks for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:33:24 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.216.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YIZrG-0006lO-JY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:33:24 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id p6so34359815qcv.1 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:33:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=i46XH7zINH4kwEFAfvdPawzkPJFqP39TON0f1AQfHFE=; b=gK3KsmiCG3tmmpZD7vGfTB+VjXeZOKMQXVX8m4VCYhl82ZDOc18WgesqbihLabQe9b 1CjNkzpzKXfCVYPNJEErvIKdDBKMLyI7SG5LZOegYTDDLj5L3xUhDc33Fr6DdTL5ny0x 0zy+6PBpIumN74tDOgwgiIFtyia6tgomOyvHXAqG5UZyVe9nxy0OX+Nk+w2uv8RH9vdx 1VwlPSFXrsioIqlFS9ypcin/Tk+Vp3DufRPmGNKIbYlP7bNk+SAEbAukQnt5lW3Rpgub quPzQPbpPpLItTaZ8XhGGQnL/60KsQ7RT10SmVC6e6zzUbwjbxpSR9J3c0U9B/30Lr/o QwQg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnEgXT9grTtxfyvfEtHJmuNQs9ICUnHAizb2fcwS9uU0A9cwPvGsyJXTo1JX1Nc00J1+Hb6 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.91.201 with SMTP id z67mr2713363qgd.27.1422955997006; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.137.197 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 01:33:16 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [93.196.125.123] In-Reply-To: <54D014DB.50404@gk2.sk> References: <54CF74A5.3050304@gk2.sk> <54CF9016.5070206@gk2.sk> <54D014DB.50404@gk2.sk> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:33:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: Levin Keller To: Pavol Rusnak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a6a4ebba819050e2bc2e2 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YIZrG-0006lO-JY Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Export format for xpub X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:33:24 -0000 --001a113a6a4ebba819050e2bc2e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Why even bother with the specific HD scheme such as BIP32 or BIP44. What are the interesting parameters? Required: - gap limit Optional: - which node of the derivation chain is actually exported (m0' for BIP32, m44'0'account' for BIP44) - which subnodes are used for external and internal purposes - creation date To import the data in a read only application it is not important which node one actually gets and in all implementations the subnode of the exported node "0" is used for external addresses and "1" for internal addresses. There is no usecase to export any higher node than m0' in BIP32 or m44'0'account' as one can only derive any child nodes of the higher nodes *with the private master key*. As for lower nodes (like further down the path) there is also no need to export because in all implementations today they will only give around half of the used addresses. So I think a more general but very useful export scheme would be: bitcoin-pub-export:xpub[gibberish]?gaplimit=[number]&path=[path in derivation tree]&subchains=[numbers]&creationdate=[unixtimestamp] Why not have more descriptive parameters? Saving on data? I am a big fan of unix timestamps. Would vote for Andreas' format on the creation date. Cheers Levin 2015-02-03 1:22 GMT+01:00 Pavol Rusnak : > On 03/02/15 01:05, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > > I don't think that parameterizing will work, we can't predict future > > BIPs. It's the same as for BIP43, in the end we agreed on just putting > > the BIP number. > > Hm, let me put the questions the other way around: > > What gap limit should a wallet use if it encounters h=bip32? > > What h value should I use for myTREZOR wallets? Which is essentially a > BIP44 wallet that produces h=bip32 xpubs with gap limit 20 ... > > -- > Best Regards / S pozdravom, > > Pavol Rusnak > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is > your > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a113a6a4ebba819050e2bc2e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why even bother with the specific= HD scheme such as BIP32=C2=A0 or BIP44. What are the interesting parameter= s?

Required:
  • gap limit

Optio= nal:

  • which node of the derivation chain is actually exported (m0= ' for BIP32, m44'0'account' for BIP44)
  • which subnod= es are used for external and internal purposes
  • creation date
    • To import the data in a read only application it is not important which = node one actually gets and in all implementations the subnode of the export= ed node "0" is used for external addresses and "1" for = internal addresses.

There is no usecase to export any hig= her node than m0' in BIP32 or m44'0'account' as one can onl= y derive any child nodes of the higher nodes with the private master key= . As for lower nodes (like further down the path) there is also no need= to export because in all implementations today they will only give around = half of the used addresses.

So I think a more general but= very useful export scheme would be:

bitcoin-pub-export:xpub[g= ibberish]?gaplimit=3D[number]&path=3D[path in derivation tree]&subc= hains=3D[numbers]&creationdate=3D[unixtimestamp]

Why = not have more descriptive parameters? Saving on data?

I am a big fan of unix timestamps. Would vote for Andreas'= ; format on the creation date.

Cheers

Levin

2015-02-03 1:= 22 GMT+01:00 Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>:
On 03/02/15 01:05, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > I don't think that parameterizing will work, we can't predict = future
> BIPs. It's the same as for BIP43, in the end we agreed on just put= ting
> the BIP number.

Hm, let me put the questions the other way around:

What gap limit should a wallet use if it encounters h=3Dbip32?

What h value should I use for myTREZOR wallets? Which is essentially a
BIP44 wallet that produces h=3Dbip32 xpubs with gap limit 20 ...

--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>

----------------------------= --------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is you= r
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a<= br> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--001a113a6a4ebba819050e2bc2e2--