To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0d405f5d-c0a4-bad7-b6c3-08ba4424bf17@satoshilabs.com>
	<8b4831a4-791e-c03e-baa4-16d9e5ead442@electrum.org>
	<84f4a4b8-fcbd-433b-9556-174ec5475f61@satoshilabs.com>
	<oos72e$rjp$1@blaine.gmane.org>
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>
Message-ID: <40ed03a1-915c-33b0-c4ac-e898c8c733ba@satoshilabs.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:00:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <oos72e$rjp$1@blaine.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Extended serialization format for
 BIP-32 wallets
Precedence: list

On 07/09/17 21:35, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In case of Bitcoin Wallet, the depth is not null (m/0'/[0,1]) and still
> we need this field.

But the depth of exported public key will be null. It does not make
sense to export xpub for m or m/0' for your particular case.

> I think it should always be present if a chain is
> limited to a certain script type.

I am fine with having the path there all the time.

> There is however the case where even on one chain, script types are
> mixed. In this case the field should be omitted and the wallet needs to
> scan for all (known) types. Afaik Bitcoin Core is taking this path.

Is that really the case? Why come up with a hierarchy and then don't use it?

-- 
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol "stick" Rusnak
CTO, SatoshiLabs