Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BIP 43: Reserve purpose codes for SLIPs, and describe a scheme for altcoins #523

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

commented Apr 21, 2017

@Arachnid

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 21, 2017

👍

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 21, 2017

I don't mind

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 30, 2017

@prusnak is that an ACK, or should I wait for @slush0 ?

@jprichardson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 1, 2017

NACK on deterministic scheme for alts. BIPs are for Bitcoin only and should not dictate a scheme for alts: #76 (comment) Plus, the wallets have determined a scheme using BIP44.

ACK on purpose code allocation for SLIPs though.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 1, 2017

It doesn't dictate anything, merely reserves a path for altcoin standards processes to use. BIP 44 does not suffice for this purpose. For example, see ethereum/EIPs#600

@jprichardson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 1, 2017

merely reserves a path for altcoin standards processes to use.

They can already do this. They can use any purpose constant they want.

BIP 44 does not suffice for this purpose. For example, see ethereum/EIPs#600

It suffices just fine - 10 wallets use it: ethereum/EIPs#84 (comment) There was discussion about this over a year ago: ethereum/EIPs#84

BIP44/43 are sufficient as-is. The only thing this PR should be concerned about is the reservation of the purpose constants for SLIPs.

@Arachnid

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 1, 2017

They can already do this. They can use any purpose constant they want.

Without coordination, however, the chance of more than one coin using the same constant is very high.

It suffices just fine - 10 wallets use it

The link you provide illustrates exactly why it doesn't work well: the BIP44 scheme is poorly suited to coins that don't use UTXO mechanisms, resulting in different wallets interpreting it differently and using incompatible derivation paths. The 10 wallets you mention are using 3 different mutually incompatible derivation paths.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.