rich1.0npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6https://nostr.ae/npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-03-28 📝 Original message:I agree that 'version' field of bip32 is not necessary and xpriv/xpub should be enough for all cases; there's actually no need to use different BIP32 roots for different altcoins. I'm happily using one xpub for Bitcoin/Testnet/Litecoin at once, and by having the "cointype" distinction in the bip32 path itself, I'm sure that I don't reuse the same pubkey across blockchains which may be a privacy issue otherwise. Marek On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pavol Rusnak <stick at gk2.sk> wrote: > > Cointype in path is for separation purposes, not for identification. > > I don't understand what that gains you. > > -- > Pieter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140328/8b081833/attachment.html>