1 2016-08-13 09:27:20 <nsh> has anyone read this? https://www.gitbook.com/download/pdf/book/programmingblockchain/programmingblockchain  [blockchain programming in C++] ?
 2 2016-08-13 09:37:31 <nsh> can't see any red flags from a cursory inspection anyway
 3 2016-08-13 09:37:45 <btcdrak> where is BIP48 documented? I dont see it in bips but it's referenced in Trezor's Copay documentation https://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-apps/copay.html
 4 2016-08-13 09:38:27 <btcdrak> luke-jr: any ideas?
 5 2016-08-13 09:40:03 <nsh> it's not, seemingly
 6 2016-08-13 09:40:16 <nsh> at least, people have asked before and not found anything
 7 2016-08-13 09:43:06 <luke-jr> btcdrak: BIP 48 is not assigned.
 8 2016-08-13 09:43:15 <btcdrak> >.>
 9 2016-08-13 09:43:35 <luke-jr> nor do I have any notated "self-assignment" of it that i am aware of
10 2016-08-13 09:43:40 <btcdrak> "Shared accounts (BIP48) are different from your personal accounts (BIP44) and can’t be viewed in MyTrezor."
11 2016-08-13 09:43:47 <btcdrak> I'll email them and ask.
12 2016-08-13 09:44:00 <luke-jr> closest thing I know about is 44	Multi-Account Hierarchy for Deterministic Wallets
13 2016-08-13 19:01:40 <btcdrak> luke-jr: I wonder if the Trezor documentation is confused and it is actually https://github.com/bitpay/copay#wallet-export-format "derivation strategy BIP44 (root m/48')"
14 2016-08-13 19:15:05 <btcdrak> other copayers extended public keys."
15 2016-08-13 19:15:05 <btcdrak> "Since version 1.5, Copay uses the root m/48' for hardware multisignature wallets. This was coordinated with Ledger and Trezor teams. While the derivation path format is still similar to BIP44, the root was in order to indicate that these wallets are not discoverable by scanning addresses for funds. Address generation for multisignature wallets requires the
16 2016-08-13 19:33:06 <btcdrak> luke-jr: there are references to BIP48 in the Copay sourcecode. So it looks like they might very well have self assigned the number BIP48 to refer to BIP44 with a root of m/48' yet without submitting a BIP.
17 2016-08-13 20:57:39 <bitanarchy> I noticed that bitcoin-core cannot do a signrawtransaction without synced blockchain, because it cannot see whether the tx output is there and unspent...
18 2016-08-13 21:05:38 <arubi> bitanarchy, you can pass the input as json
19 2016-08-13 21:28:29 <bitanarchy> arubi: the input tx id is in the unsigned tx... what do you mean?
20 2016-08-13 21:30:30 <arubi> I mean, you can pass the unspent output in json, and have signrawtransaction use that
21 2016-08-13 21:30:55 <arubi> or you could use bitcoin-tx, it's much more convenient
22 2016-08-13 21:32:39 <arubi> bitanarchy, the reason it can't sign it for you is because it doesn't know what to sign, so if you explicitly pass in the details, it will be able to sign it
23 2016-08-13 21:44:53 <btcdrak> luke-jr: trezor wrote to me separately saying there is no BIP48, they just meant that they use m/48 root.
24 2016-08-13 21:46:46 <btcdrak> they are updating their documentation on their website. will see what Bitpay have to say. The only BIP48 references are some variable names in Copay, other than that there isnt anything written anywhere.
25 2016-08-13 21:47:23 <luke-jr> btcdrak: yeah, BIP 44 recommends getting a BIP assigned and using it as the root.. so I should probably save 48 for them
26 2016-08-13 21:48:56 <btcdrak> luke-jr: well as you have probably seen, I wrote to all the HW wallets + Bitpay dev to suggest they write a BIP or otherwise clarify. Let's see what happens.