From: Matt Smith <matt@gem•co>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Alternate HD path structure: BIP, blog, or wat?
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:42:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55847E98.3050307@gem.co> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1952 bytes --]
Hey guys,
The crew at Gem is considering a new HD wallet path structure for our
wallets, which are coin-agnostic, that separates the coin_type field
into two fields as such:
m / purpose' / network' / asset_type' / account' / change / index
where network refers to the blockchain (0 - bitcoin, 1 - testnet3, 2 -
litecoin, etc) and the new asset_type refers to the kind of asset to be
held in accounts below that path (Open Assets, Omni, Counterparty).
The intent is to allow us to validate the address format, select the
appropriate daemon to scan for tokenized assets, and choose multiple
blockchain data sources (that may not know anything about token systems
running on the blockchain they expose) relevant to an HDNode in the
wallet using only information in the HDNode's path -- without having to
maintain an explicit mapping of coin_type -> network.
For example, we already have the issue of mapping network identifiers
because of the lack of standardization across cryptocurrency libraries
which ends up being ugly and obnoxious to maintain, i.e.
netcode_map = {
testnet: testnet3,
bitcoin_testnet: testnet3,
testnet3: testnet3,
XTN: testnet3, ...
}
netcode_i_want = netcode_map[netcode_returned_by_libwhatever]
We want to avoid maintaining a similar asset_type_to_blockchain mapping.
Additionally, it would be helpful for utxo selection to exclude utxos
tied to assets based on path.
BIP43 seems to suggest that we request a BIP number and publish an
informational BIP specifying the new purpose. If that's not appropriate,
then maybe we just need to publish the information in a blog post to
allow any wallet developers who want to to implement
import_from_gem_structure.
I was also wondering if anyone had previously suggested something
similar that I missed when cruising the mailing list archives on the
subject.
Thanks,
–
Matt Smith | Gem
https://gem.co | GH: @thedoctor
[-- Attachment #1.2: 0x63331857.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 2201 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2015-06-19 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-19 20:42 Matt Smith [this message]
2015-06-19 21:25 ` Matt @ Envrin Group
2015-06-19 23:31 ` Matt Smith
2015-06-20 0:57 ` Andreas Petersson
2015-06-20 2:40 ` Matt Smith
2015-06-20 1:58 ` Matt @ Envrin Group
2015-06-20 10:11 ` Jonas Schnelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55847E98.3050307@gem.co \
--to=matt@gem$(echo .)co \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox