{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-08\n📝 Original message:I still don't understand the purpose of cointype. If you don't want to\nrisk reusing the same keys across different currencies, just don't use\nthe same seed or the same account? That is purely a client-side issue.\n\nIf the consensus is to add the cointype anyway, can we fix it to be\nequal to the 4-byte magic in the serialization (after setting the high\nbit to true)? That way there aren't two 4-byte magic codes that need\nto be defined for each, and at the same time make it obvious from the\nserialized form what it is for.\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM, slush \u003cslush at centrum.cz\u003e wrote:\n\u003e After some off-list discussion about details with wallet developers, it\n\u003e seems that structure\n\u003e\n\u003e m/\u003ccointype\u003e'/\u003caccount\u003e'/\u003cchange\u003e/\u003cn\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e fulfill requirements of all wallet developers around, including myTrezor,\n\u003e Electrum, Multibit, Wallet32 and other software is willing to adapt once\n\u003e anything will be standardized (i.e. they don't care).\n\u003e\n\u003e Because I think that everybody told their comments to the topic already and\n\u003e because it seems that there's quite wide agreement on that, I would like to\n\u003e close the discussion and finally implement these paths into our software.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Marek\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:59 PM, slush \u003cslush at centrum.cz\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I agree that 'version' field of bip32 is not necessary and xpriv/xpub\n\u003e\u003e should be enough for all cases; there's actually no need to use different\n\u003e\u003e BIP32 roots for different altcoins.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'm happily using one xpub for Bitcoin/Testnet/Litecoin at once, and by\n\u003e\u003e having the \"cointype\" distinction in the bip32 path itself, I'm sure that I\n\u003e\u003e don't reuse the same pubkey across blockchains which may be a privacy issue\n\u003e\u003e otherwise.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Marek\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pavol Rusnak \u003cstick at gk2.sk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e Cointype in path is for separation purposes, not for identification.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I don't understand what that gains you.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Put Bad Developers to Shame\n\u003e Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration\n\u003e Continuously Automate Build, Test \u0026 Deployment\n\u003e Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees\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"}