Wrong account#/index# when deriving additional Thorchain addresses

[purelycrickets]

Overview

Reported in Support and recreated by Ops:

The first address (0th address) is derived with 44'/931'/0'/0/0 which is correct.

Other tools increment the index# (last digit) when deriving additional addresses:
44'/931'/0'/0/1
44'/931'/0'/0/2
44'/931'/0'/0/3
but it seems ShapeShift is incrementing the account number instead:

44'/931'/1'/0/0
44'/931'/2'/0/0
44'/931'/3'/0/0
This creates an inconsistency between how ShapeShift works vs how all other tools work.

If a user creates a 2nd address on any other tool, and then tries to use that address on ShapeShift, they'll think the funds are gone.

Similarly, if someone creates a 2nd address on ShapeShift but then tries to use any other tool, they won't find their funds there either

References and additional details

https://jam.dev/c/33665cda-3e4e-4b77-a518-4c5175803bcf
See the difference^

Acceptance Criteria

ShapeShift uses the proper account derivation index incrementation.

Need By Date

No response

Screenshots/Mockups

No response

Estimated effort

No response

[gomesalexandre]

Closing as this isn't a bug - different wallets use different derivation paths for accounts 0+, this is the state of internet chains.
More details in https://discord.com/channels/554694662431178782/1299096396108136549/1299098236111294494

[mperklin]

You can choose to label this as "not a bug" but it still has multiple negative consequences for ShapeShift.

1. User Confusion: I went to do a swap on ShapeShift earlier this week and could not find my account. This prompted me to open a support ticket.
2. Support Cost: Every support ticket opened has a real cost for some paid DAO member to look at and resolve.
3. User Frustration: I spent 30mins looking for any way to get the ShapeShift webapp to recognize a different derivation path so I could access my tokens but all paths lead to these addresses that—while mine—were not the ones that had the tokens that I wanted to access with ShapeShift
4. Lost Revenue: I left the ShapeShift app in frustration and swapped on THORSwap instead because they were able to show me the addresses I wanted to use.
5. Brand Tarnishing: The experience left me with a worse impression of ShapeShift since it couldn't serve what I needed. I am now less-inclined to recommend ShapeShift to my friends who use multiple accounts because I know that if they try to use multiple accounts on ShapeShift they will encounter the same issues I did.

@gomesalexandre you are technically "correct" that this isn't a "bug" by the definition of a bug. But when everybody else is deriving addresses one way and ShapeShift is alone in deriving them a different way, this issue affects ShapeShift users.

(I define "everybody else" as a combination of: Ledger Live, XDEFI, and THORSwap)

While it may not be a "bug" there are a number of negative effects that are real and measurable.

Even though there is no "correct" derivation path, there are very few reasons to use custom/unique paths and very many reasons to use the same paths the rest of the entire ecosystem uses.

As an exercise, I encourage you to enumerate all the pros/cons for why ShapeShift should continue using non-standardized paths here and all the benefits those non-standard paths bring to ShapeShift and its users.
Then enumerate all the pros/cons for changing paths to match the rest of the ecosystem.

Which set of pros/cons has more upside for ShapeShift?
Which set of pros/cons has more upside for ShapeShift's users?

[gomesalexandre]

@mperklin Thanks for the additional context! The issue is this was raised to @shapeshift/operations through a support ticket and eventually as a high-priority bug in the GitHub bug board (and required immediate attention as was wrongly though to be a prod issue from the description).

Just to get things clear here, I'm myself in favour of this as a feature and would love to see it added. All points are very valid - I've voiced support for it in the past myself to address the frustration of TS keystore users - especially now with our current focus on making the wallets experience better.

If you want to vouch for this feature, #product-public-chat is the goer, let's get this through regular channels and product lifecycle 🙏🏽