From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum•org>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: bip32 version bytes for segwit scripts
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 11:26:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56a0c721-4bae-7b99-0ca3-d0834756fc31@electrum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+_kfXJPfbGD6cDiPZ+7Z_rwUVS6JQNW8Vb-YsgD2wsPhHoBjw@mail.gmail.com>
On 05.09.2017 21:00, Kabuto Samourai wrote:
>
> The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub
> both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes to
> eliminate the ambiguity?
>
I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.
However, fixing that now might be difficult.
My "xyz" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy
to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.
However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to
add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently
allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than
ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.
In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess
not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is
useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will
never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a
P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as
strong.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-06 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-05 19:00 Kabuto Samourai
2017-09-06 9:26 ` Thomas Voegtlin [this message]
2017-09-06 13:47 ` Kabuto Samourai
2017-09-07 19:02 ` Luke Dashjr
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-09-05 10:25 Thomas Voegtlin
2017-09-05 15:44 ` Pavol Rusnak
2017-09-05 17:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-09-05 18:09 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2017-09-06 17:02 ` Pavol Rusnak
2017-09-05 22:13 ` Andreas Schildbach
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=56a0c721-4bae-7b99-0ca3-d0834756fc31@electrum.org \
--to=thomasv@electrum$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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