Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput

ZmnSCPxj writes: > It seems to me, that `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` may help make some protocol > integrate better with existing wallets. Depends on which end of a transaction the existing wallet is: existing wallets will refuse to sign a transaction with an unknown sighash flag,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Multi-signature and multi-coin HD wallet in one BIP32 derivation path (new BIP)

Hi Clark, Thanks for the feedback. I was somewhat coming to the same conclusion as yourself having had a few days to think on it. I am going to support SLIP-0032 for the serialization format of extended keys as I believe this adds value in terms of additional validation when extended public

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Multi-signature and multi-coin HD wallet in one BIP32 derivation path (new BIP)

Paul, The current BIP-49 / 84 use the purpose field of the derivation path to specify the address format. ​I think sticking with the one-BIP-one-format method works. Otherwise, you would need to modify this proposed BIP each time a new format comes along. In that case, existing wallets that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput

Good morning Christian, > ZmnSCPxj zmnsc...@protonmail.com writes: > > > It seems to me, that `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` may help make some protocol > > > > integrate better with existing wallets. > > Depends on which end of a transaction the existing wallet is: existing > > wallets will refuse to