Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure

[slush <slush@centrum.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1677 bytes --]

After some off-list discussion about details with wallet developers, it
seems that structure

m/<cointype>'/<account>'/<change>/<n>

fulfill requirements of all wallet developers around, including myTrezor,
Electrum, Multibit, Wallet32 and other software is willing to adapt once
anything will be standardized (i.e. they don't care).

Because I think that everybody told their comments to the topic already and
because it seems that there's quite wide agreement on that, I would like to
close the discussion and finally implement these paths into our software.

Cheers,
Marek


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:59 PM, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:

> I agree that 'version' field of bip32 is not necessary and xpriv/xpub
> should be enough for all cases; there's actually no need to use different
> BIP32 roots for different altcoins.
>
> I'm happily using one xpub for Bitcoin/Testnet/Litecoin at once, and by
> having the "cointype" distinction in the bip32 path itself, I'm sure that I
> don't reuse the same pubkey across blockchains which may be a privacy issue
> otherwise.
>
> Marek
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk> wrote:
>> > Cointype in path is for separation purposes, not for identification.
>>
>> I don't understand what that gains you.
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2898 bytes --]