rich1.0npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hhttps://nostr.ae/npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-03-26 📝 Original message:This might be tangential, but the comment about "refund" chains reminded me. Armory will be implementing multi-sig/linked wallets where a each device has a parallel HDW branch and produces P2SH addresses. For those types of wallets, I plan to allocate two chains /per signing authority/. If you have a shared 2-of-2 wallet split between your phone and your spouse's phone, your phone would distribute addresses on P2SH chain 0 and generate change addresses on P2SH chain 1. Your spouse's phone would use chains 2 and 3. So if you and your spouse switch to a new app that supports M-of-N linked wallets, it should search for coin history along the first 2*N chains. -Alan On 03/26/2014 07:37 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > Thanks for starting the discussion on finding a better structure. > > For me, the most important thing is either we're 100% interoperable or > 0%. There should not be anything inbetween, as users will delete seeds > without knowing there is still money in them on another implementation. > I heard from multiple sources that using this standard some wallets will > only see a subset of the addresses/keys of some other wallets. > Implementation differences can always happen (and should addresses as > bugs), but I think its unacceptable that this source of issues is by design. > > I suggest we agree on an even simpler least common denominator and > wallets that want to implement some feature on top of that can do but > are encouraged to pick a totally different "cointype". I guess that > would mean removing reserved and account. > > I'm still thinking it might be a good idea to have a separate chain for > "refunds". Refunds will be rarely used and thus need a much slower > moving window than receiving addresses or change. > > > On 03/26/2014 09:49 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> Myself, Thomas V (Electrum) and Marek (Trezor) got together to make sure >> our BIP32 wallet structures would be compatible - and I discovered that >> only I was planning to use the default structure. >> >> Because I'm hopeful that we can get a lot of interoperability between >> wallets with regards to importing 12-words paper wallets, we >> brainstormed to find a structure acceptable to everyone and ended up with: >> >> /m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n >> >> The extra levels require some explanation: >> >> * cointype: This is zero for Bitcoin. This is here to support two >> things, one is supporting alt coins based off the same root seed. >> Right now nobody seemed very bothered about alt coins but sometimes >> feature requests do come in for this. Arguably there is no need and >> alt coins could just use the same keys as Bitcoin, but it may help >> avoid confusion if they don't. >> >> More usefully, cointype can distinguish between keys intended for >> things like multisig outputs, e.g. for watchdog services. This means >> if your wallet does not know about the extra protocol layers >> involved in this, it can still import the "raw" money and it will >> just ignore/not see the keys used in more complex transactions. >> >> * reserved is for "other stuff". I actually don't recall why we ended >> up with this. It may have been intended to split out multisig >> outputs etc from cointype. Marek, Thomas? >> >> * account is for keeping essentially wallets-within-a-wallet to avoid >> mixing of coins. If you want that. >> >> * change is 0 for receiving addresses, 1 for change addresses. >> >> * n is the actual key index >> >> For bitcoinj we're targeting a deliberately limited feature set for hdw >> v1 so I would just set the first three values all to zero and that is a >> perfectly fine way to be compatible. >> >> The goal here is that the same seed can be written down once, and meet >> all the users needs, whilst still allowing some drift between what >> wallets support. >> >> Pieter made the I think valid point that you can't really encode how >> keys are meant to be used into just an HDW hierarchy and normally you'd >> need some metadata as well. However, I feel interop between wallets is >> more important than arriving at the most perfect possible arrangement, >> which feels a little like bikeshedding, so I'm happy to just go with the >> flow on this one. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140326/35055a7c/attachment.html>