Pavol Rusnak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-09-07 📝 Original message:On 07/09/17 21:35, Andreas ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-09-07
📝 Original message:On 07/09/17 21:35, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In case of Bitcoin Wallet, the depth is not null (m/0'/[0,1]) and still
> we need this field.
But the depth of exported public key will be null. It does not make
sense to export xpub for m or m/0' for your particular case.
> I think it should always be present if a chain is
> limited to a certain script type.
I am fine with having the path there all the time.
> There is however the case where even on one chain, script types are
> mixed. In this case the field should be omitted and the wallet needs to
> scan for all (known) types. Afaik Bitcoin Core is taking this path.
Is that really the case? Why come up with a hierarchy and then don't use it?
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol "stick" Rusnak
CTO, SatoshiLabs
📝 Original message:On 07/09/17 21:35, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In case of Bitcoin Wallet, the depth is not null (m/0'/[0,1]) and still
> we need this field.
But the depth of exported public key will be null. It does not make
sense to export xpub for m or m/0' for your particular case.
> I think it should always be present if a chain is
> limited to a certain script type.
I am fine with having the path there all the time.
> There is however the case where even on one chain, script types are
> mixed. In this case the field should be omitted and the wallet needs to
> scan for all (known) types. Afaik Bitcoin Core is taking this path.
Is that really the case? Why come up with a hierarchy and then don't use it?
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol "stick" Rusnak
CTO, SatoshiLabs