đź“… Original date posted:2018-06-19
📝 Original message:I agree with matejcik’s point 1 to 3 and especially with point 4.
The mandatory flag (or optional-flag) makes much sense to me.
> -----------
>
> In general, the standard is trying to be very space-conservative,
> however is that really necessary? We would argue for clarity and ease of
> use over space constraints. We think more straightforward approach is
> desired, although more space demanding. What are the arguments to make
> this as small as possible? If we understand correctly, this format is
> not intended for blockchain nor for persistent storage, so size doesn’t
> matter nearly as much.
I don’t see any reasons why space would be an issue.
HWWs probably can’t handle PBST natively since it is not optimised for
presenting various informations in a signing-verification.
A single stream-in of a PSBT through USB (or similar channel) will not work in
many cases since HWW come often with very restrictive RAM constraints.
Furthermore, I forget to mention in my last mail, that registering (or defining)
a mime-type for PSBT would probably a great usability feature.
(Send PSBT by email/messanger and with dbl-click to open feature, etc.)
/jonas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180619/c263f67b/attachment.sig>;
Jonas Schnelli [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nf…3dtxs
2023-06-07 18:13:04
in reply to nevent1q…0f98
Author Public Key
npub1nfrrurat393mqymf3s26pujyn5vujlem3pzcukr5p9d4qpklngxq43dtxsPublished at
2023-06-07 18:13:04Event JSON
{
"id": "392090647ed1863494495134a1027a6c01e2d336a1748c1a219486ebaa085665",
"pubkey": "9a463e0fab8963b013698c15a0f2449d19c97f3b88458e5874095b5006df9a0c",
"created_at": 1686161584,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cde3c2f1af5ec4e3200e32c7fdbcba54b58741a9d65d38dd383e78325ee0ffcd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a2de812ff76e1804dafaae835cb2bfa2f87e517f72b1946514a2c3f4d090ec6e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3a1f55a6a0e37109f7404e07ba52112f4c689363e4c7aa20d99d4785ede262ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-06-19\n📝 Original message:I agree with matejcik’s point 1 to 3 and especially with point 4.\nThe mandatory flag (or optional-flag) makes much sense to me.\n\n\u003e -----------\n\u003e \n\u003e In general, the standard is trying to be very space-conservative,\n\u003e however is that really necessary? We would argue for clarity and ease of\n\u003e use over space constraints. We think more straightforward approach is\n\u003e desired, although more space demanding. What are the arguments to make\n\u003e this as small as possible? If we understand correctly, this format is\n\u003e not intended for blockchain nor for persistent storage, so size doesn’t\n\u003e matter nearly as much.\n\nI don’t see any reasons why space would be an issue.\n\nHWWs probably can’t handle PBST natively since it is not optimised for\npresenting various informations in a signing-verification.\n\nA single stream-in of a PSBT through USB (or similar channel) will not work in\nmany cases since HWW come often with very restrictive RAM constraints.\n\nFurthermore, I forget to mention in my last mail, that registering (or defining)\na mime-type for PSBT would probably a great usability feature.\n(Send PSBT by email/messanger and with dbl-click to open feature, etc.)\n\n\n/jonas\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180619/c263f67b/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "9a5857b3ed61db0e4b3bd0b23a4d97b0f189812fa38dd489f40cfa6fc26574e3acb6e6b0d7714e5834420f509f3f246d8c01a2c57474c682939a1a27ea66cb99"
}