[Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure

Andreas Schildbach andreas at schildbach.de
Tue Apr 8 14:49:43 UTC 2014


On 04/08/2014 02:43 PM, slush wrote:

> After some off-list discussion about details with wallet developers, it
> seems that structure
> 
> m/<cointype>'/<account>'/<change>/<n> 
> 
> fulfill requirements of all wallet developers around, including
> myTrezor, Electrum, Multibit, Wallet32 and other software is willing to
> adapt once anything will be standardized (i.e. they don't care).
> 
> Because I think that everybody told their comments to the topic already
> and because it seems that there's quite wide agreement on that, I would
> like to close the discussion and finally implement these paths into our
> software.

While there is an agreement that a standard would be useful for sharing
wallets, we certainly didn't agree on every aspect of a standard. At
least not on this thread, and also not at the Berlin meeting.

I understand each client will implement things a little bit different,
for example the current plan is bitcoinj will hold all keys in memory
and start reusing keys on low resources. Electrum uses a chain for their
private purpose. Etc.

If we cannot 100% agree on a standard and also agree it will not be
extended in future, I think we should not even try. It's dangerous for
the money of users.

I propose we keep our chains deliberately separate and only try
standardizing after each of us has a feel for the specific requirements.






More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list