📅 Original date posted:2016-05-15
📝 Original message:On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > 0x40000000 would be the next available to specify witness addresses.
> > This is compatible with existing accounts and wallet layouts.
>
> my main concern here is that
> -) every Bip<this-bip>-compatible wallet in the future will have to
> implement all (then probably) legacy derivation and tx schemes.
>
I can see the advantage of a segwit only scheme, but we will need to
support old derivations anyway for many decades if not indefinitely. People
are using it to store value for the long term.
> -) it does not fail in a deterministic way, if I import a seed or
> xPriv/xPub across different capable wallets.
> It is more visible if one account has [no funds/does not show up]
> at all after an import than if something shows up but you need to make sure
> that the balance is what you might expect.
>
This is certainly a downside. It has to be weighed against the benefit of
being able to upgrade existing wallets in place. Asking users to create a
new wallet, and replace their recovery phrase backups is an even bigger
problem in my estimation.
What do you think of doing both? A new BIP43 purpose number for segwit only
wallets, but that also specifies 0x40000000/1 for the change/receive index
so that the scheme is compatible with other schemes for upgrade existing
wallets in place? There will certainly be wallet developers who decide to
upgrade in place, but we can standardized both how to indicate segwit
chains, independent of segwit only schemes or upgrade schemes, and still
have the advantages of a new segwit only BIP43 purpose number.
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet <http://breadwallet.com/>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160515/447aa364/attachment.html>;
Aaron Voisine [ARCHIVE] /
npub18g…knkzl
2023-06-07 17:50:44
in reply to nevent1q…lgc4
Author Public Key
npub18gjvug29c4yg46lmplq38e75gg6wn5mn8taytckcsr4jt8p74h3s5knkzlPublished at
2023-06-07 17:50:44Event JSON
{
"id": "808e8eef5fe3d916c63643398f40f807b706007e1c4afef5742f7f05b730db7c",
"pubkey": "3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3",
"created_at": 1686160244,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"dde2d1a2608d8708981e63f6426a506001e25543a593f3cfcddbdaafeb9e6b7d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a753957e0ba9d6dc9da3696c412a6b4de118686cee440e1e18e3e5567fc64090",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"bb4ce56ff7b2b187b434598f9aed542e3b855d5b9b4f7f6c0e5e0c7a8b9faae2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-05-15\n📝 Original message:On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e 0x40000000 would be the next available to specify witness addresses.\n\u003e \u003e This is compatible with existing accounts and wallet layouts.\n\u003e\n\u003e my main concern here is that\n\u003e -) every Bip\u003cthis-bip\u003e-compatible wallet in the future will have to\n\u003e implement all (then probably) legacy derivation and tx schemes.\n\u003e\n\nI can see the advantage of a segwit only scheme, but we will need to\nsupport old derivations anyway for many decades if not indefinitely. People\nare using it to store value for the long term.\n\n\n\u003e -) it does not fail in a deterministic way, if I import a seed or\n\u003e xPriv/xPub across different capable wallets.\n\u003e It is more visible if one account has [no funds/does not show up]\n\u003e at all after an import than if something shows up but you need to make sure\n\u003e that the balance is what you might expect.\n\u003e\n\nThis is certainly a downside. It has to be weighed against the benefit of\nbeing able to upgrade existing wallets in place. Asking users to create a\nnew wallet, and replace their recovery phrase backups is an even bigger\nproblem in my estimation.\n\nWhat do you think of doing both? A new BIP43 purpose number for segwit only\nwallets, but that also specifies 0x40000000/1 for the change/receive index\nso that the scheme is compatible with other schemes for upgrade existing\nwallets in place? There will certainly be wallet developers who decide to\nupgrade in place, but we can standardized both how to indicate segwit\nchains, independent of segwit only schemes or upgrade schemes, and still\nhave the advantages of a new segwit only BIP43 purpose number.\n\nAaron Voisine\nco-founder and CEO\nbreadwallet \u003chttp://breadwallet.com/\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160515/447aa364/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "87bbed1f3d6db6e4a0012fae899c1de3d354a4d4788bf9c6a0027ba74e7a9ba7c284f540d17e2ceba056a116a13486a8056f8f48e8786aa7ee888d8e0973e561"
}