MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo7w9mSEDZ2Qf4i79HpgOQQjr2+Cyif4xbt=TKyDkvPdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHabJ+N3Tr5FtStH6Msmj3d8EsvjeTEV6FhSEiizLVs=5ZvCfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201509040006.06430.luke@dashjr.org>
	<55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
	<CABm2gDo7w9mSEDZ2Qf4i79HpgOQQjr2+Cyif4xbt=TKyDkvPdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 12:48:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CANOOu=9Wn3kVC8eVQWLhMZpDKyVQ5Aus1=b-TsY=Ce9oud0xHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on
	BIP-43
Precedence: list

I will point out that the current situation is not an accident:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=3D%E2%9C%93&q=3D44 is a great
place to get some context for what happened. I believe you can also
find the other half of this discussion on the mailing list archives.

The cointypes being simple integers was how the code worked as shipped
(in the trezor), so changing the semantics after the fact wasn't a
possibility.

The BIP repository didn't want to constantly deal with updates
unrelated to Bitcoin proper, so a decision was made to move that part
of the standard to a repository willing to handle it.

On 5 September 2015 at 07:17, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non-
>> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
>> >     https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
>>
>> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to
>> that company in particular?
>>
>> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of
>> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
>> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefi=
t.
> The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered=
_coin_types
>
> It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead o=
f
> having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to
> maintain competing registries.
>
> Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the cha=
in
> ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a
> registry in the first place.
>
>> --
>> Justus Ranvier
>> Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
>> http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
>> justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
>> E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>