rich1.0npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8https://nostr.ae/npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-08 📝 Original message:Pieter, your suggestion has charm since “Bitcoin seed” would even not need a global dictionary like the interpretation of the first level, since it would be self describing. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 08.04.2014, at 15:53, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote: > I see the cause of our disagreement now. > > You actually want to share a single BIP32 tree across different > currency types, but do it in a way that guarantees that they never use > the same keys. > > I would have expected that different chains would use independent > chains, and have serializations encode which chain they belong to. > > Let me offer an alternative suggestion, which is compatible with the > original default BIP32 structure: > * You can use one seed across different chains, but the master nodes > are separate. > * To derive the master node from the seed, the key string "Bitcoin > seed" is replaced by something chain-specific. > * Every encoded node (including master nodes) has a chain-specific > serialization magic. > > This is in practice almost the same as your suggestion, except that > the m/cointype' in m/cointype'/account'/change/n is replaced by > different masters. The only disadvantage I see is that you do not have > a way to encode the "super master" that is the parent of all > chain-specific masters. You can - and with the same security > properties - encode the seed, though. > > -- > Pieter > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM, slush <slush at centrum.cz> wrote: >> tl;dr; >> >> It is dangerous to expect that other seed than "xprv" does not contain >> bitcoins or that "xprv" contains only bitcoins, because technically are both >> situations possible. It is still safer to do the lookup; the magic itself is >> ambiguous. >> >> Marek >> >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM, slush <slush at centrum.cz> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Serialization magic of bip32 seed is in my opinion completely unnecessary. >>> Most of software does not care about it anyway; You can use xprv/xpub pair >>> for main net, testnet, litecoin, dogecoin, whatevercoin. >>> >>> Instead using the same seed (xprv) and then separate the chains *inside* >>> the bip32 path seems more useful to me. >>> >>> Marek >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Put Bad Developers to Shame > Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration > Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment > Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140408/272c6548/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140408/272c6548/attachment.sig>