> This will lead to old UTXOs not being recognized by NEW wallets, because > at some point new wallets will not care about implementing old standards.
Your observations make perfect sense. That's exactly why we endorse option b. in my previous email. > The only way to address this is to get out of bip39 and bip43, and to > include a version number in the mnemonic seed. As for the idea of having a versioning on mnemonic seeds, I believe it would be a very useful feature indeed. How about opening a new, separate, topic about it? On 30/08/17 12:07, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On 29.08.2017 12:19, Simone Bronzini via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> 2. SegWit addresses: >> since mixing SegWit and non-SegWit addresses on the same BIP44 structure >> could lead to UTXOs not being completely recognised by old wallets, >> BIP49 was proposed to separate the key space. > This will lead to old UTXOs not being recognized by NEW wallets, because > at some point new wallets will not care about implementing old standards. > > The only way to address this is to get out of bip39 and bip43, and to > include a version number in the mnemonic seed. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
0xB2E60C73.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
