{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-27\n📝 Original message:On 03/27/2014 04:57 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote:\n\u003e Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is\n\u003e unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for\n\u003e Litecoin, etc...).  This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins,\n\u003e and also supports Testnet cases well.  Maybe there are some alts without\n\u003e such a magic number that might prevent that?\n\nThat magic number is something I find very unfortunate and superflous in\nBIP-32 design. Its only purpose is to distinguish BIP-32 trees for\nvarious altcoins, but it doesn't make sense at all once you start\nstoring various altcoins in the same tree using the proposed\n/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n scheme.\n\nI would love to see that removed from BIP-32 and use always\n0x0488B21E/0x0488ADE4 (xpub/xpriv), but that is for different discussion\nI guess.\n\n-- \nBest Regards / S pozdravom,\n\nPavol Rusnak \u003cstick at gk2.sk\u003e"}