📅 Original date posted:2014-04-08
📝 Original message:On 04/08/2014 02:43 PM, slush wrote:
> After some off-list discussion about details with wallet developers, it
> seems that structure
>
> m/<cointype>'/<account>'/<change>/<n>
>
> fulfill requirements of all wallet developers around, including
> myTrezor, Electrum, Multibit, Wallet32 and other software is willing to
> adapt once anything will be standardized (i.e. they don't care).
>
> Because I think that everybody told their comments to the topic already
> and because it seems that there's quite wide agreement on that, I would
> like to close the discussion and finally implement these paths into our
> software.
While there is an agreement that a standard would be useful for sharing
wallets, we certainly didn't agree on every aspect of a standard. At
least not on this thread, and also not at the Berlin meeting.
I understand each client will implement things a little bit different,
for example the current plan is bitcoinj will hold all keys in memory
and start reusing keys on low resources. Electrum uses a chain for their
private purpose. Etc.
If we cannot 100% agree on a standard and also agree it will not be
extended in future, I think we should not even try. It's dangerous for
the money of users.
I propose we keep our chains deliberately separate and only try
standardizing after each of us has a feel for the specific requirements.
Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xg…adsv7
2023-06-07 15:18:05
in reply to nevent1q…vwau
Author Public Key
npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7Published at
2023-06-07 15:18:05Event JSON
{
"id": "213dedb3ce988133a9e41881014dcf84ebf713483bcb70f54be6986539d81bd0",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686151085,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3d6a81230db6ab232d8356d3ea7e609f18aff1b8f11502ea70755e81b0de88f9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b5c1071befef6d45d580775b9195a1eef5dc8e706eb08807475f73bb0ce7ab27",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-08\n📝 Original message:On 04/08/2014 02:43 PM, slush wrote:\n\n\u003e After some off-list discussion about details with wallet developers, it\n\u003e seems that structure\n\u003e \n\u003e m/\u003ccointype\u003e'/\u003caccount\u003e'/\u003cchange\u003e/\u003cn\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e fulfill requirements of all wallet developers around, including\n\u003e myTrezor, Electrum, Multibit, Wallet32 and other software is willing to\n\u003e adapt once anything will be standardized (i.e. they don't care).\n\u003e \n\u003e Because I think that everybody told their comments to the topic already\n\u003e and because it seems that there's quite wide agreement on that, I would\n\u003e like to close the discussion and finally implement these paths into our\n\u003e software.\n\nWhile there is an agreement that a standard would be useful for sharing\nwallets, we certainly didn't agree on every aspect of a standard. At\nleast not on this thread, and also not at the Berlin meeting.\n\nI understand each client will implement things a little bit different,\nfor example the current plan is bitcoinj will hold all keys in memory\nand start reusing keys on low resources. Electrum uses a chain for their\nprivate purpose. Etc.\n\nIf we cannot 100% agree on a standard and also agree it will not be\nextended in future, I think we should not even try. It's dangerous for\nthe money of users.\n\nI propose we keep our chains deliberately separate and only try\nstandardizing after each of us has a feel for the specific requirements.",
"sig": "6ce2ad8c807873d6fb0c44be4023c3a0f8422120fcc0318a3ca754de387ebbb075d818e13ea0be2457fa67891135843ce314e71a6984a8f74585158a0e591351"
}