{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-26\n📝 Original message:Thanks for starting the discussion on finding a better structure.\n\nFor me, the most important thing is either we're 100% interoperable or\n0%. There should not be anything inbetween, as users will delete seeds\nwithout knowing there is still money in them on another implementation.\nI heard from multiple sources that using this standard some wallets will\nonly see a subset of the addresses/keys of some other wallets.\nImplementation differences can always happen (and should addresses as\nbugs), but I think its unacceptable that this source of issues is by design.\n\nI suggest we agree on an even simpler least common denominator and\nwallets that want to implement some feature on top of that can do but\nare encouraged to pick a totally different \"cointype\". I guess that\nwould mean removing reserved and account.\n\nI'm still thinking it might be a good idea to have a separate chain for\n\"refunds\". Refunds will be rarely used and thus need a much slower\nmoving window than receiving addresses or change.\n\n\nOn 03/26/2014 09:49 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e Myself, Thomas V (Electrum) and Marek (Trezor) got together to make sure\n\u003e our BIP32 wallet structures would be compatible - and I discovered that\n\u003e only I was planning to use the default structure.\n\u003e \n\u003e Because I'm hopeful that we can get a lot of interoperability between\n\u003e wallets with regards to importing 12-words paper wallets, we\n\u003e brainstormed to find a structure acceptable to everyone and ended up with:\n\u003e \n\u003e   /m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n\n\u003e \n\u003e The extra levels require some explanation:\n\u003e \n\u003e   * cointype:  This is zero for Bitcoin. This is here to support two\n\u003e     things, one is supporting alt coins based off the same root seed.\n\u003e     Right now nobody seemed very bothered about alt coins but sometimes\n\u003e     feature requests do come in for this. Arguably there is no need and\n\u003e     alt coins could just use the same keys as Bitcoin, but it may help\n\u003e     avoid confusion if they don't.\n\u003e \n\u003e     More usefully, cointype can distinguish between keys intended for\n\u003e     things like multisig outputs, e.g. for watchdog services. This means\n\u003e     if your wallet does not know about the extra protocol layers\n\u003e     involved in this, it can still import the \"raw\" money and it will\n\u003e     just ignore/not see the keys used in more complex transactions.\n\u003e \n\u003e   * reserved is for \"other stuff\". I actually don't recall why we ended\n\u003e     up with this. It may have been intended to split out multisig\n\u003e     outputs etc from cointype. Marek, Thomas?\n\u003e \n\u003e   * account is for keeping essentially wallets-within-a-wallet to avoid\n\u003e     mixing of coins. If you want that.\n\u003e \n\u003e   * change is 0 for receiving addresses, 1 for change addresses.\n\u003e \n\u003e   * n is the actual key index\n\u003e \n\u003e For bitcoinj we're targeting a deliberately limited feature set for hdw\n\u003e v1 so I would just set the first three values all to zero and that is a\n\u003e perfectly fine way to be compatible.\n\u003e \n\u003e The goal here is that the same seed can be written down once, and meet\n\u003e all the users needs, whilst still allowing some drift between what\n\u003e wallets support.\n\u003e \n\u003e Pieter made the I think valid point that you can't really encode how\n\u003e keys are meant to be used into just an HDW hierarchy and normally you'd\n\u003e need some metadata as well. However, I feel interop between wallets is\n\u003e more important than arriving at the most perfect possible arrangement,\n\u003e which feels a little like bikeshedding, so I'm happy to just go with the\n\u003e flow on this one.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\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"}