Pavol Rusnak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š
Original date posted:2016-05-13 š Original message:On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron ...
š
Original date posted:2016-05-13
š Original message:On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> This scheme is independent of the number of accounts. It works with BIP44
> as well as BIP43 purpose 0, or any other BIP43 purpose/layout. Instead of
> overloading the account index to indicate the type of address, you use the
> chain index, which is already being used to indicate what the specific
> address chain is to be used for, i.e. receive vs change addresses.
I see the advantage here. But there is a major problem here.
We came up with BIP44 so a wallet can claim it is BIP44 compatible and
you can be 100% sure that you can migrate accounts from one wallet
implementation to another. This was not previously possible when a
wallet claimed it is BIP32 compatible.
Now we have a similar problem. When there is a BIP44 wallet, does it
mean it supports segwit or not? For this reason I would like to see
another BIPXX for segwit, so a wallet can claim it is BIP44, BIP44+BIPXX
or BIPXX compatible and you'll know what other wallets are compatible
with it.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol "stick" Rusnak
SatoshiLabs.com
Published at
2023-06-07 17:50:41Event JSON
{
"id": "6d1dc0d42f23374d7abdffca1baa198936911267491c4c100e294b0d6b7d9471",
"pubkey": "7631397e469f47f3535567311f5f7c17129e0ff2cb253df015e3d92ddfd92c63",
"created_at": 1686160241,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"dde2d1a2608d8708981e63f6426a506001e25543a593f3cfcddbdaafeb9e6b7d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9bf6fc1b036a22e879e49b113b739cec0683002a0d4d77607c3ab9f77c1e5d2e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-05-13\nš Original message:On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron Voisine wrote:\n\u003e This scheme is independent of the number of accounts. It works with BIP44\n\u003e as well as BIP43 purpose 0, or any other BIP43 purpose/layout. Instead of\n\u003e overloading the account index to indicate the type of address, you use the\n\u003e chain index, which is already being used to indicate what the specific\n\u003e address chain is to be used for, i.e. receive vs change addresses.\n\nI see the advantage here. But there is a major problem here.\n\nWe came up with BIP44 so a wallet can claim it is BIP44 compatible and\nyou can be 100% sure that you can migrate accounts from one wallet\nimplementation to another. This was not previously possible when a\nwallet claimed it is BIP32 compatible.\n\nNow we have a similar problem. When there is a BIP44 wallet, does it\nmean it supports segwit or not? For this reason I would like to see\nanother BIPXX for segwit, so a wallet can claim it is BIP44, BIP44+BIPXX\nor BIPXX compatible and you'll know what other wallets are compatible\nwith it.\n\n-- \nBest Regards / S pozdravom,\n\nPavol \"stick\" Rusnak\nSatoshiLabs.com",
"sig": "1be78a1600aad8d0e1d80c416104266a5918cd0c9e566232ed94ecbe479431914376b165901ea2c93903ff47773099ca95f354766ac28bf42ebd00ff62ee357a"
}