Hello Jochen,
Post by Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-devI think we should already consider not only P2WPKH over P2SH addresses
but also "native" P2WPKH addresses. Instead of having one BIP for these
[...]
Post by Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-devBIP?? compatible wallet must support both of them. Since P2WPKH is
simpler than P2WPKH over P2SH, this is IMHO reasonable to require.
[...]
Post by Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-devE.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.
Post by Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-devI 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
Post by Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-devHello Daniel,
Post by Daniel Weigl via bitcoin-devHi List,
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