📅 Original date posted:2014-03-27
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> By the way, I just noticed that greenaddress.it is creating seeds that have 24
> words instead of 12. Does anyone know what's up with that? They claim to be
> using BIP32 wallets so I wanted to see if they were using the default structure
> and if so, whether bitcoinj was compatible with it (before I switch to the one
> discussed here). But it seems we fall at the first hurdle ...
>
They replied this on reddit: "Good question! We use 256-bit BIP39
seeds for our 512-bit extended HD wallet keypairs, as advised by
BIP32. We are aware that 128 is considered ok in Electrum but we
wanted to follow BIP32 spec, in particular because we are working with
hardware wallets that have been design with BIP32 in mind and wanted
to avoid any incompatibility issue."
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/20puhg/while_blockchaininfo_is_down_what_about_testing/cg5mr54
BTW, thanks for starting this thread. I am with the bitcore team,
working on a new multisig only wallet (Cosign).
The schema originally proposed be Mike (/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n
) seems flexible enough for our needs. I wonder, tough, if we can
agree also on a format to exchange the tips (n) of each branch on the
tree when the user export/backup the wallet, as Allen suggested.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas at schildbach.de> wrote:
> 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.
Is the ideal schema that the user should be able to use two different
wallets at the same time? Does a wallet need to assume that derivate
keys could had been used already? That seems complicated. Maybe we
could add a /(hash of the wallet name)/ on the BIP32 path.
--
matias
--
Matías Alejo Garcia
Skype/Twitter: @ematiu
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads!
Matias Alejo Garcia [ARCHIVE] /
npub1p6…8etde
2023-06-07 15:16:24
in reply to nevent1q…4c4a
Author Public Key
npub1p6uknnmm7wknvg9cq5wqsf7ulpsrdzd6zt6qw707y5t05fuzvfdsx8etdePublished at
2023-06-07 15:16:24Event JSON
{
"id": "a284da15e610030270096b54d378ae646499b27987c13b8eee1935c223256830",
"pubkey": "0eb969cf7bf3ad3620b8051c0827dcf8603689ba12f40779fe2516fa2782625b",
"created_at": 1686150984,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d9ddea79394f356d989e65ab112610cc90e9929cf3c160da3cfe266aeba22200",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7efdbdf34cf0e1fad5d3e9b6cb8606f2ddb265719ae992b9b04295a36113d1e2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-03-27\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e By the way, I just noticed that greenaddress.it is creating seeds that have 24\n\u003e words instead of 12. Does anyone know what's up with that? They claim to be\n\u003e using BIP32 wallets so I wanted to see if they were using the default structure\n\u003e and if so, whether bitcoinj was compatible with it (before I switch to the one\n\u003e discussed here). But it seems we fall at the first hurdle ...\n\u003e\n\nThey replied this on reddit: \"Good question! We use 256-bit BIP39\nseeds for our 512-bit extended HD wallet keypairs, as advised by\nBIP32. We are aware that 128 is considered ok in Electrum but we\nwanted to follow BIP32 spec, in particular because we are working with\nhardware wallets that have been design with BIP32 in mind and wanted\nto avoid any incompatibility issue.\"\n\nhttp://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/20puhg/while_blockchaininfo_is_down_what_about_testing/cg5mr54\n\n\nBTW, thanks for starting this thread. I am with the bitcore team,\nworking on a new multisig only wallet (Cosign).\n\nThe schema originally proposed be Mike (/m/cointype/reserved'/account'/change/n\n) seems flexible enough for our needs. I wonder, tough, if we can\nagree also on a format to exchange the tips (n) of each branch on the\ntree when the user export/backup the wallet, as Allen suggested.\n\n\nOn Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Andreas Schildbach\n\u003candreas at schildbach.de\u003e wrote:\n\u003e For me, the most important thing is either we're 100% interoperable or\n\u003e 0%. There should not be anything inbetween, as users will delete seeds\n\u003e without knowing there is still money in them on another implementation.\n\nIs the ideal schema that the user should be able to use two different\nwallets at the same time? Does a wallet need to assume that derivate\nkeys could had been used already? That seems complicated. Maybe we\ncould add a /(hash of the wallet name)/ on the BIP32 path.\n\n\n--\nmatias\n\n\n\n-- \nMatías Alejo Garcia\nSkype/Twitter: @ematiu\nRoads? Where we're going, we don't need roads!",
"sig": "b13e253c6a6672c3b7b2799369e128d501a807bc410bbae286e14d7f44fcdaa46b31ee13a463cf54b4f38ef77baed061c0f5df3646e40825f08da78657191c20"
}