To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 21:35:49 +0200
Message-ID: <oos72e$rjp$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <0d405f5d-c0a4-bad7-b6c3-08ba4424bf17@satoshilabs.com>
	<8b4831a4-791e-c03e-baa4-16d9e5ead442@electrum.org>
	<84f4a4b8-fcbd-433b-9556-174ec5475f61@satoshilabs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
In-Reply-To: <84f4a4b8-fcbd-433b-9556-174ec5475f61@satoshilabs.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Extended serialization format for
	BIP-32 wallets
Precedence: list

On 09/07/2017 06:23 PM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 07/09/17 06:29, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> A solution is still needed to wallets who do not wish to use BIP43
> 
> What if we added another byte field OutputType for wallets that do not
> follow BIP43?
> 
> 0x00 - P2PKH output type
> 0x01 - P2WPKH-in-P2SH output type
> 0x02 - native Segwit output type
> 
> Would that work for you?

I think that would work.

> The question is whether this field should be present only if depth==0x00
> or at all times. What is your suggestion, Thomas?

In case of Bitcoin Wallet, the depth is not null (m/0'/[0,1]) and still
we need this field. I think it should always be present if a chain is
limited to a certain script type.

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.