What paths does electrum use for it's receiving addresses?

[spiralus]

Hi,
I can see how Electrum generates xprv,xpub from it's input seed, but I can't tell the paths to the Generated Addresses. I've been trying to debug this for a while but it's difficult with some many paths through the code. I would think the path would be "m/44'/0'/0'/0/0" for the 1st address but it doesn't match. Any help is appreciated. Thanks

[1715020707]

1715020707

[1715020707]

1715020707

[1715020707]

1715020707

[1715020707]

1715020707

[1715020707]

1715020707

[btchris]

Electrum uses m/c/i, where c is 0 for external, 1 for internal (change), and i is the incrementing index.

For a summary of various wallets, see this spreadsheet.

[spiralus]

Electrum uses m/c/i, where c is 0 for external, 1 for internal (change), and i is the incrementing index.

For a summary of various wallets, see this spreadsheet.

Thanks for spreadsheet. I see BIP44 for Electrum 2.6 m/44'/0'/a'/c/i ,
for a = account index
c = 0 for external, 1 for internal (change)
i = key/address index

Which is what I'd expect. So I'd expect 1st address at m/44'/0'/0'/0/0, do you disagree?
Thanks

[btchris]

That's only for wallets which are restored from a BIP39-compliant mnemonic sentence created by some other not-Electrum software (Electrum currently supports this, but it may not always).

Wallets created by Electrum use Electrum's proprietary mnemonic-to-xprv algorithm, and use a path of m/c/i.

[spiralus]

Ah Ok. Thanks. Didn't realize there were these various options before

[ThomasV]

Wallets created by Electrum use Electrum's proprietary mnemonic-to-xprv algorithm, and use a path of m/c/i.

our algorithm is not proprietary, any other wallet can use it.
some documentation here:
http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html

[btchris]

our algorithm is not proprietary, any other wallet can use it.
some documentation here:
http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html

My apologies, that was a very poor choice of words on my part (I should know better). I should have written "different (and in some ways better) than BIP-39" or similar....