Hello Jochen, > I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses > but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these [...] > BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is > simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require. [...] > E.g., 0,1 for > P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH. I see no reason why a
Thats a good point and should be simple to maintain. Yes, ill extend on that part. The problem is, we dont have a final decision how the address encoding for P2WPKH public keys should look like. Or do we? Bip141 is "Status: Deferred" But for now, I can at least include the public key derivation path. > I see no reason why a > wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead > of native P2WPKH, though. That would be a big privacy leak, imo. As soon as both outputs are spent, its visible which one was the P2WPKH-in-P2SH and which one the pure P2WPKH and as a consequence you leak which output was the change and which one the actual sent output So, i'd suggest to even make it a requirement for "normal" send-to-single-address transactions to always use the same output type for the change output (if the wallet is able to recognize it) Daniel On 2016-06-15 12:26, Jochen Hoenicke wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > Am 14.06.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-dev: >> Hi List, >> >> Following up to the discussion last month ( >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012695.html >> ), ive prepared a proposal for a BIP here: >> >> >> https://github.com/DanielWeigl/bips/blob/master/bip-p2sh-accounts.mediawiki >> >> >> Any comments on it? Does anyone working on a BIP44 compliant wallet >> implement something different? >> If there are no objection, id also like to request a number for it. > > thank you for going forward with this. Should we keep the discussion on > the list, or should we make it on github? > > I think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses > but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these > two kinds of segwit addresses and forcing the user to have several > different accounts for each BIP, the idea would be that every fully > BIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is > simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require. > > I would go with the suggestion from Aaron Voisine to use different chain > id's to distinguish between different address types. E.g., 0,1 for > P2WPKH over P2SH and 2,3 for native P2WPKH. I see no reason why a > wallet would want to use P2WPKH over P2SH for change addresses instead > of native P2WPKH, though. > > Jochen > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
