📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23
📝 Original message:For those who don't follow github pull requests regularly; there's pull
request for BIP64 defining HD wallet structure as discussed in this thread:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/52
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, slush <slush at centrum.cz> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Storing the seed is superior to storing the master node already
>> (whether coin specific or not), as it is smaller.
>>
>>
> ...Except that you're loosing flexibility (serialization, deserialization)
> which gives you BIP32 node.
>
> I see "bip32 seed" as some transitional, internal state from raw entropy
> to bip32 master node and this seed should not be handled by the end user in
> any form. In the oposite, well-serialized bip32 node (in xpriv, or even in
> mnemonic format) can be used very widely and have no downsides against
> using raw "bip32 seed".
>
>
>>
>> Fair enough, it would break strictly BIP32. Then again, BIP32 is a
>> *Bitcoin* improvement proposal, and not something that necessarily
>> applies to other coins (they can adopt it of course, I don't care).
>>
>>
> I also don't care too much about altcoins, but people want them so me, as
> infrastructure developer, need to think about it. And I don't see any
> reason for breaking compatibility between Bitcoin and other altcoins. I
> would be happier if there will be another sentence than "Bitcoin seed", but
> honestly, who cares. It is just some magic string for hashing the raw
> seed...
>
>
>> What I dislike is that this removes the ability of using the magic in
>> the serialization to prevent importing a chain from the wrong coin.
>>
>
> The truth is that even existing software which handle bip32 don't care
> about 'version' at all. I think that "xpub/xprv" distinction is the only
> useful feature of version, so user se if it stores public or private
> information.
>
> But using prefixes which doesn't enforce anything is even more dangerous.
> If somebody exports node "dogeblablabla", it creates false exceptations
> that there's only dogecoin stored.
>
> Marek
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/ffd687fd/attachment.html>;
slush [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ad…gl2p6
2023-06-07 15:17:53
in reply to nevent1q…am3m
Author Public Key
npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6Published at
2023-06-07 15:17:53Event JSON
{
"id": "b2d6347463baa28ab23498ca4881035cc1c9128aba513207be1aa2d7db639303",
"pubkey": "eb7ca795057ca7cabde6f541c741e661d013414934e5934c2e04c6677625c99a",
"created_at": 1686151073,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3d6a81230db6ab232d8356d3ea7e609f18aff1b8f11502ea70755e81b0de88f9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ea02c04187b7971c1c25d604bdf522b15f797a0dcd8b9d4d2402fdf091248095",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"eb7ca795057ca7cabde6f541c741e661d013414934e5934c2e04c6677625c99a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:For those who don't follow github pull requests regularly; there's pull\nrequest for BIP64 defining HD wallet structure as discussed in this thread:\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/52\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, slush \u003cslush at centrum.cz\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Storing the seed is superior to storing the master node already\n\u003e\u003e (whether coin specific or not), as it is smaller.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e ...Except that you're loosing flexibility (serialization, deserialization)\n\u003e which gives you BIP32 node.\n\u003e\n\u003e I see \"bip32 seed\" as some transitional, internal state from raw entropy\n\u003e to bip32 master node and this seed should not be handled by the end user in\n\u003e any form. In the oposite, well-serialized bip32 node (in xpriv, or even in\n\u003e mnemonic format) can be used very widely and have no downsides against\n\u003e using raw \"bip32 seed\".\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Fair enough, it would break strictly BIP32. Then again, BIP32 is a\n\u003e\u003e *Bitcoin* improvement proposal, and not something that necessarily\n\u003e\u003e applies to other coins (they can adopt it of course, I don't care).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e I also don't care too much about altcoins, but people want them so me, as\n\u003e infrastructure developer, need to think about it. And I don't see any\n\u003e reason for breaking compatibility between Bitcoin and other altcoins. I\n\u003e would be happier if there will be another sentence than \"Bitcoin seed\", but\n\u003e honestly, who cares. It is just some magic string for hashing the raw\n\u003e seed...\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What I dislike is that this removes the ability of using the magic in\n\u003e\u003e the serialization to prevent importing a chain from the wrong coin.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e The truth is that even existing software which handle bip32 don't care\n\u003e about 'version' at all. I think that \"xpub/xprv\" distinction is the only\n\u003e useful feature of version, so user se if it stores public or private\n\u003e information.\n\u003e\n\u003e But using prefixes which doesn't enforce anything is even more dangerous.\n\u003e If somebody exports node \"dogeblablabla\", it creates false exceptations\n\u003e that there's only dogecoin stored.\n\u003e\n\u003e Marek\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/ffd687fd/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5f777af5d119c961f513d267495eda7a3c5dc0b9d9d3fb5f6d87cf7db59e40e96caf0864c35d224c2cf22fcde55977763628451d491987cff7b1b4a85b9caf78"
}