Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP32/43-based standard for Schnorr signatures & decentralized identity

From: Dr Maxim Orlovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:52:12 +0000

Hi Adam,

Commenting on your question:

> With segWit vs pre-SegWit didn't wallets just select and standardize
> on a different HD derivation path?
> 
> Is there something else needed than a Schnorr derivation path?

The general accepted practice (defined in BIP43) is to define a dedicated purpose field for each kind of key derivation and address encoding. There is a dedicated purpose for pre-SegWit, SegWit, multisigs — and now a purpose for Schnorr sigs/Taproot outputs is needed. That is why I brought forward this proposal, which addresses exactly this need - and also will support at the same time multisigs and pre-Taproot outputs, making all previously used purpose fields redundant, simplifying future wallets.

Kind regards,
Maxim