On 05.09.2017 21:00, Kabuto Samourai wrote: > > The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub > both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes to > eliminate the ambiguity? >
I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start. However, fixing that now might be difficult. My "xyz" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes. However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy. In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as strong. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
