Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WTCq8-0005kU-0M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:07:36 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.132.66]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTCq6-0004Df-3p for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:07:35 +0000 Received: from [37.143.74.116] (helo=[192.168.2.2]); authenticated by wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1WTCpz-0005Kw-Gd; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:07:27 +0100 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_51B674C8-04AE-497D-8193-788CE23FDC90"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Tamas Blummer In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:07:26 +0100 Message-Id: References: To: Allen Piscitello X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; tamas@bitsofproof.com; 1395936454; 2a1b794f; X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1WTCq6-0004Df-3p Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:07:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_51B674C8-04AE-497D-8193-788CE23FDC90 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E570546D-0D99-4A79-8667-DFD8F464823E" --Apple-Mail=_E570546D-0D99-4A79-8667-DFD8F464823E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I think not all alts (will) have magic numbers, at least not those = defined e.g. with colored coins on top of an other chain. Also note that the index should have MSB cleared as it would otherwise = indicate private derivation.=20 Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 27.03.2014, at 16:57, Allen Piscitello = wrote: > Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is = unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for = Litecoin, etc...). This seems like a good candidate for identifying = coins, and also supports Testnet cases well. Maybe there are some alts = without such a magic number that might prevent that? >=20 > -Allen >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Garzik = wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Tamas Blummer = wrote: > > A notable suggestion was to instead of building a directory of magic = numbers > > (like 0 for Bitcoin, 1 for Litecoin etc) use a hash of the word = "Bitcoin", > > "Litecoin", "Dogecoin", so collosion is unlikely and > > cetral directory is not needed. >=20 > +1 good idea >=20 > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >=20 --Apple-Mail=_E570546D-0D99-4A79-8667-DFD8F464823E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Regards,

http://bitsofproof.com
On 27.03.2014, at 16:57, Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Don't most of these coins = have a magic number already assigned that is unique? (0xD9B4BEF90x0709110B for = Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for Litecoin, = etc...).  This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins, = and also supports Testnet cases well.  Maybe there are some alts = without such a magic number that might prevent that?
-Allen


On = Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
On = Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> = wrote:
> A notable suggestion was to instead of = building a directory of magic numbers
> (like 0 for Bitcoin, 1 for Litecoin etc) use a hash of the word = "Bitcoin",
> "Litecoin", "Dogecoin", so collosion is unlikely and
> cetral directory is not needed.

+1 good idea

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

= --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-developm= ent@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-dev= elopment


= --Apple-Mail=_E570546D-0D99-4A79-8667-DFD8F464823E-- --Apple-Mail=_51B674C8-04AE-497D-8193-788CE23FDC90 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTNEy+AAoJEPZykcUXcTkcJxEIAMJxgECmq0iijYiyPCDGejkh /Zplm161I15/7oTQAwG+aB+QVBEhZADWE2QBcNVQTVUPNI++y+S3s3N+F3tBsiFJ qm7XC05JSIHbRlz1Z8qgAUc+14Jszo/Ry/kKRepX1pc5PZ/HKoPLysHfiRm5eEhd Tgm4hfmFZVO8TUmafDnLvJAmqF9HVllU/Rrs/H7Gk32pKSowx4eBCd3SPs4Lr9G1 hmQvTO9qebXMFu0Ly+h0NTxD8JD579s75mPxB22yMtlAtIK9aRAcxLEdiD4RKcGM A1Kd0pODA2O8Z4zDU1AX+P2U8tjcYVl8MWZVHwRHF9CoQ3ItcbCJjoHRb0dJaUY= =5KRU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_51B674C8-04AE-497D-8193-788CE23FDC90--