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