{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-28\n📝 Original message:I agree that 'version' field of bip32 is not necessary and xpriv/xpub\nshould be enough for all cases; there's actually no need to use different\nBIP32 roots for different altcoins.\n\nI'm happily using one xpub for Bitcoin/Testnet/Litecoin at once, and by\nhaving the \"cointype\" distinction in the bip32 path itself, I'm sure that I\ndon't reuse the same pubkey across blockchains which may be a privacy issue\notherwise.\n\nMarek\n\n\nOn Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pavol Rusnak \u003cstick at gk2.sk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Cointype in path is for separation purposes, not for identification.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't understand what that gains you.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140328/8b081833/attachment.html\u003e"}