Generally I like the idea, but maybe we should come up with a (Bech32-based?) new standard that also includes the key birthdate (aka "wallet birthdate").
Also I heard Core will mix addresses of all types on the same HD chain. What prefix would it pick? "*pub"? On 09/05/2017 12:25 PM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP32 extended public/private keys have version bytes that result in the > user visible xpub/xprv prefix. The BIP's recommendation is to use > different version bytes for other networks (such as tpub/tprv for testnet) > > I would like to use additional version bytes to indicate the type of > output script used with the public keys. > > I believe the change should be user visible, because users are exposed > to master public keys. I propose the following prefixes: > > ========== =========== =================================== > Version Prefix Description > ========== =========== =================================== > 0x0488ade4 xprv P2PKH or P2SH > 0x0488b21e xpub P2PKH or P2SH > 0x049d7878 yprv (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH > 0x049d7cb2 ypub (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH > 0x04b2430c zprv P2WPKH or P2WSH > 0x04b24746 zpub P2WPKH or P2WSH > ========== =========== =================================== > (source: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html) > > I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for > keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used. > However, the very existence of version bytes, and the fact that they are > used to signal whether keys will be used on testnet or mainnet goes > against that argument. > > If we do not signal the script type in the version bytes, I believe > wallet developers are going to use dirtier tricks, such as the bip32 > child number field in combination with bip43/bip44/bip49. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
