From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 485FFB0A for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 07:19:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.osc.co.cr (unknown [168.235.79.83]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEE5320C for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 07:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.225] (miner1 [71.94.45.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: danda) by mail.osc.co.cr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E97BF1F015; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:19:37 -0700 (PDT) To: shiva sitamraju , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Dan Libby Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:19:31 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 13:44:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP49 Derivation scheme changes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 07:19:39 -0000 On 08/30/2017 12:24 AM, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev wrote: > What would happen if you recover a wallet using seed words ? > 1. Since there is no difference in seed words between segwit/non > segwit, the wallet would discover both m/44' and m/49' accounts > 2. Note that we cannot ask the user to choose an account he wants to > operate on (Segwit/Non segwit). This is like asking him the HD > derivation path and a really bad UI > 3. The wallet now has to constantly monitor both m/44' and m/49' > accounts for transactions small nit with 3. It seems to me that the wallet would perform initial discovery on m/44 and m/49, and then would find transactions at one or the other, so it can then record the type somewhere and from then on need only monitor one branch. Still, I agree it is ugly, makes initial discovery up to 2x slower, etc. > *- XPUB Derivation* > This is something not addressed in the BIP yet. > > 1. Right now you can get an xpub balance/transaction history. With m/49' > there is no way to know whether an xpub is from m/44' or m/49' > > 2. This breaks lots of things. Wallets like electrum/armory/mycelium > support > importing xpub as a watch only wallet. Also services like > blockonomics/blockchain.info use xpub for > displaying balance/generating merchant addresses > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts speaking as author of tools hd-wallet-addrs and hd-wallet-derive, I agree this is problematic. would be great if xpub/xprv could somehow encode their absolute path in wallet for tools to read. Users cannot be expected to know.