Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure

[Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1573 bytes --]

I think not all alts (will) have magic numbers, at least not those defined e.g. with colored coins on top of an other chain.

Also note that the index should have MSB cleared as it would otherwise indicate private derivation. 

Regards,

Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com

On 27.03.2014, at 16:57, Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for Litecoin, etc...).  This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins, and also supports Testnet cases well.  Maybe there are some alts without such a magic number that might prevent that?
> 
> -Allen
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
> > A notable suggestion was to instead of building a directory of magic numbers
> > (like 0 for Bitcoin, 1 for Litecoin etc) use a hash of the word "Bitcoin",
> > "Litecoin", "Dogecoin", so collosion is unlikely and
> > cetral directory is not needed.
> 
> +1 good idea
> 
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6014 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]