{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-26\n📝 Original message:Myself, Thomas V (Electrum) and Marek (Trezor) got together to make sure\nour BIP32 wallet structures would be compatible - and I discovered that\nonly I was planning to use the default structure.\n\nBecause I'm hopeful that we can get a lot of interoperability between\nwallets with regards to importing 12-words paper wallets, we brainstormed\nto find a structure acceptable to everyone and ended up with:\n\n  /m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n\n\nThe extra levels require some explanation:\n\n   - cointype:  This is zero for Bitcoin. This is here to support two\n   things, one is supporting alt coins based off the same root seed. Right now\n   nobody seemed very bothered about alt coins but sometimes feature requests\n   do come in for this. Arguably there is no need and alt coins could just use\n   the same keys as Bitcoin, but it may help avoid confusion if they don't.\n\n   More usefully, cointype can distinguish between keys intended for things\n   like multisig outputs, e.g. for watchdog services. This means if your\n   wallet does not know about the extra protocol layers involved in this, it\n   can still import the \"raw\" money and it will just ignore/not see the keys\n   used in more complex transactions.\n\n   - reserved is for \"other stuff\". I actually don't recall why we ended up\n   with this. It may have been intended to split out multisig outputs etc from\n   cointype. Marek, Thomas?\n\n   - account is for keeping essentially wallets-within-a-wallet to avoid\n   mixing of coins. If you want that.\n\n   - change is 0 for receiving addresses, 1 for change addresses.\n\n   - n is the actual key index\n\nFor bitcoinj we're targeting a deliberately limited feature set for hdw v1\nso I would just set the first three values all to zero and that is a\nperfectly fine way to be compatible.\n\nThe goal here is that the same seed can be written down once, and meet all\nthe users needs, whilst still allowing some drift between what wallets\nsupport.\n\nPieter made the I think valid point that you can't really encode how keys\nare meant to be used into just an HDW hierarchy and normally you'd need\nsome metadata as well. However, I feel interop between wallets is more\nimportant than arriving at the most perfect possible arrangement, which\nfeels a little like bikeshedding, so I'm happy to just go with the flow on\nthis one.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140326/ed7506b1/attachment.html\u003e"}