On 13/05/16 18:59, Aaron Voisine wrote: > This scheme is independent of the number of accounts. It works with BIP44 > as well as BIP43 purpose 0, or any other BIP43 purpose/layout. Instead of > overloading the account index to indicate the type of address, you use the > chain index, which is already being used to indicate what the specific > address chain is to be used for, i.e. receive vs change addresses.
I see the advantage here. But there is a major problem here. We came up with BIP44 so a wallet can claim it is BIP44 compatible and you can be 100% sure that you can migrate accounts from one wallet implementation to another. This was not previously possible when a wallet claimed it is BIP32 compatible. Now we have a similar problem. When there is a BIP44 wallet, does it mean it supports segwit or not? For this reason I would like to see another BIPXX for segwit, so a wallet can claim it is BIP44, BIP44+BIPXX or BIPXX compatible and you'll know what other wallets are compatible with it. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol "stick" Rusnak SatoshiLabs.com _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
