1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Return-Path: <thomasv@electrum.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C1B6A84
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:39:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net
[217.70.183.195])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 291AC1D7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:39:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Originating-IP: 77.179.200.97
Received: from [192.168.1.26] (x4db3c861.dyn.telefonica.de [77.179.200.97])
(Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org)
by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B613BA80DF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:39:18 +0200 (CEST)
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<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>
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
Message-ID: <9e74dc17-105c-b43c-7780-4fa690043fe2@electrum.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:39:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <84f4a4b8-fcbd-433b-9556-174ec5475f61@satoshilabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Extended serialization format for
BIP-32 wallets
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:39:20 -0000
On 07.09.2017 18:23, Pavol Rusnak 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?
>
> The question is whether this field should be present only if depth==0x00
> or at all times. What is your suggestion, Thomas?
>
well, in my initial proposal, I wrote that this value should be user
visible. That is why I used version bytes. If you create an extra byte
field, and then use base58 or bech32 encoding, the value will not be
user visible anymore.
The initial implementation of segwit xpub/xprv in Electrum used a flag
that was not user visible (I added 1 to the bip32 version bytes, which
leaves the xpub/xprv prefix unchanged). I have experimented with that
invisible flag for more than 6 months now, and I am now convinced that
it is better to make that flag user visible.
The reason is that when users create wallets with multisig scripts, they
need to combine several master public keys. However, these master public
keys should all be of the same type: it would not make sense to create a
2 of 3 multisig wallet with a one xpub, one ypub and one zpub. By
imposing that all master keys are of the same type, we ensure that all
cosigners agree on the script type that will be used to derive addresses.
In other words, if users are exposed to master keys and need to
manipulate them, it is better to let them see what they are doing.
OTOH if you do not plan to expose your users to these keys, you probably
do not need a serialization format.
|
