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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
