<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuq</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuq</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-08&#xA;📝 Original message:On 04/08/2014 03:53 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:&#xA;&gt; Let me offer an alternative suggestion, which is compatible with the&#xA;&gt; original default BIP32 structure:&#xA;&gt; * You can use one seed across different chains, but the master nodes&#xA;&gt; are separate.&#xA;&gt; * To derive the master node from the seed, the key string &#34;Bitcoin&#xA;&gt; seed&#34; is replaced by something chain-specific.&#xA;&gt; * Every encoded node (including master nodes) has a chain-specific&#xA;&gt; serialization magic.&#xA;&#xA;This is possible, but I find it much more practical to use just one list&#xA;(assignment of coins to indexes) than to use two lists (assignment of&#xA;coins to key strings and to serialization magic).&#xA;&#xA;Keeping two lists is harder and adds unnecessary friction. (Also I am&#xA;not very happy for the possibility we&#39;ll have to deal with key strings&#xA;&#34;sCAMCo1N RULEZZZZ!!!! bRoUghT TO YoU bY M4rty&#34; and serialization magic&#xA;that leads to prefix &#34;lulz&#34;).&#xA;&#xA;Also from wallet&#39;s implementer perspective it is a little easier to use&#xA;just one root node and then descend in tree as needed than to use method&#xA;you described.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;Best Regards / S pozdravom,&#xA;&#xA;Pavol Rusnak &lt;stick at gk2.sk&gt;</html></oembed>