To: Daniel Weigl <Daniel.Weigl@mycelium.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com>
From: Jochen Hoenicke <hoenicke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57612D67.9080007@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:26:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5760259B.7040409@mycelium.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC for BIP: Derivation scheme for
 P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH based accounts
Precedence: list

Hello Daniel,

Am 14.06.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev:
> Hi List,
> 
> Following up to the discussion last month ( https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012695.html ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here:
> 	
> 	https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediawiki
> 
> 
> Any comments on it? Does anyone working on a BIP44 compliant wallet implement something different?
> If there are no objection, id also like to request a number for it.

thank you for going forward with this.  Should we keep the discussion on
the list, or should we make it on github?

I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses
but also "native" P2WPKH addresses.  Instead of having one BIP for these
two kinds of segwit addresses and forcing the user to have several
different accounts for each BIP, the idea would be that every fully
BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them.  Since P2WPKH is
simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require.

I would go with the suggestion from Aaron Voisine to use different chain
id's to distinguish between different address types.   E.g., 0,1 for
P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH.  I see no reason why a
wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead
of native P2WPKH, though.

  Jochen