From: Jochen Hoenicke <hoenicke@gmail•com>
To: Daniel Weigl <Daniel.Weigl@mycelium•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bip44 extension for P2SH/P2WSH/...
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 14:15:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <573716D4.3000108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5735D3A4.7090608@mycelium.com>
Am 13.05.2016 um 15:16 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev:
>
> With SegWit approaching it would make sense to define a common derivation scheme how BIP44 compatible wallets will handle P2(W)SH (and later on P2WPKH) receiving addresses.
> I was thinking about starting a BIP for it, but I wanted to get some feedback from other wallets devs first.
>
The discussion so far shows that starting a new BIP is a very good idea.
Otherwise everyone would do it slightly different.
With P2(W)SH you mean P2WPKH embedded in P2SH, right? P2WSH is
completely different and used for example for multisig.
> In my opinion there are two(?) different options:
To summarize, option 1 means one account that supports both non-segwit
and segwit addresses. With option 2 you have one p2pkh-only account and
one segwit-only account, which are completely separated.
I personally would vote for option 1. Scanning twice the addresses can
be avoided with Aaron's trick. The second disadvantage remains:
> -) If you have the same xPub/xPriv key in different wallets, you need to be sure both take care for the different address types
A non-segwit wallet would ignore all segwit outputs, which means that
the balance it shows is smaller (and it doesn't show transactions that
spend from previous segwit outputs). I don't see that this can lead to
losing money except maybe when sweeping the account with a p2pkh-only
wallet and then throwing the xprv away.
Of course, you can also do option 2 and let it appear to the user as if
it was only one account, but what is the advantage over option 1 in that
case? Also you need two xpubs to watch this joined account.
Jochen
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-14 12:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-13 13:16 Daniel Weigl
2016-05-13 15:00 ` Pavol Rusnak
2016-05-13 16:03 ` Aaron Voisine
2016-05-13 16:11 ` Pavol Rusnak
2016-05-13 16:59 ` Aaron Voisine
2016-05-13 17:57 ` Pavol Rusnak
2016-05-13 21:42 ` Aaron Voisine
2016-05-14 8:16 ` Jonas Schnelli
2016-05-14 12:26 ` Jochen Hoenicke
2016-05-14 14:07 ` Pavol Rusnak
2016-05-14 16:14 ` Jonas Schnelli
2016-05-14 17:37 ` Kenneth Heutmaker
2016-05-15 8:53 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2016-05-15 10:04 ` Pavol Rusnak
2016-05-15 12:08 ` Daniel Weigl
2016-05-15 17:36 ` Aaron Voisine
2016-05-14 7:00 ` Andreas Schildbach
2016-05-14 14:08 ` Pavol Rusnak
2016-05-14 17:09 ` Aaron Voisine
2016-05-14 12:15 ` Jochen Hoenicke [this message]
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=573716D4.3000108@gmail.com \
--to=hoenicke@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=Daniel.Weigl@mycelium$(echo .)com \
--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