Quote from: Sarchar on February 09, 2014, 08:10:26 AM

There isn't a spec for the alt coins as far as I'm aware. It'd be nice if there was.

TBH, I was hoping that my version bytes would become the standard. Hypothetically, if my implementation were actually used by alt-coiners then when drafting the spec it'd be more of an issue that the spec has to deal with (that people have already adopted a standard to use). Unfortunately, there's just no BIP-style development for any of the other coins, so I was forced to improvise if I wanted to support altcoins.

I was indeed going with XXpv/XXub for the public/private keypair prefixes. For testnet, I was a little less concerned about consistency but it seems you have gotten the general gist of things.

The code isn't set in stone. If you guys want the version bytes changed, let me know:)

I like the mainnet convention you're using. It's probably the most human-readable to be done in 4 characters. Would you consider changing the testnet prefix to XXtv, XXtb for private and public extended keys, respectively?

Quote from: jlp on February 10, 2014, 05:44:06 PM

I just want to enable my users to send and withdraw bitcoin. I'm trying to see if the approach suggested by just_someguy at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22368.msg5058875#msg5058875 is the way to go. I've already spent 2 months to see if I can integrate Bitcoin to my web app. Do I need to understand cryptography, Depth, Parent Fingerprint, Child Index, Chain Code, Derivation Path, Derived Private Key, Private Key (WIF), Derived Public Key, Public Key (Hex), XXpv/XXub, base58_decode, magic bytes, encode, DOGE, Ltpv, Ltub, dgpv, dgub, etc. in order to do so?

BIP32 is likely not the relevant standard if you want users to send and withdraw bitcoin. Also that post is from 2011 and the approach may no longer be best.