Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B712483 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:02:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com (mail-ua0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C541F1 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n59so73000529uan.2 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:02:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qSWTBOtO+ZTVCGzDRJDZpJz/WOdLJOsCVAGJFRTCej0=; b=DxiYb3xhUtTlASxiV0m1RS6fmY4PrVTFuSYIX6dull8GeLvBRhJxFzrHjutpkYPHaw MnGDT3SHlmZyEazt74hVmrSrsA+JyBIuQ3fLkouY3o20wYLjntR78WYBDnnNYljxIpqb NWIAgVH5cgP9Uf1zFi/U7hKG70Hpz2dxR1+euvv2UYCNXobCU0kqldFbBe1oR69evWlL afb845eO9d70XYqyb5CbCw2STW+yiReBWwq6gcEUZgzzN3afzJ9q9ybX960FaBgWq7Cy PdNUo6Ddbw0GEQZIWL78WfCSYWIq5sLa2Vmt9OaKBx78IlmjozdKaaRty9DJJBNMXens wyEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=qSWTBOtO+ZTVCGzDRJDZpJz/WOdLJOsCVAGJFRTCej0=; b=IaMLBj+SURL3xiOi3n/sCSLtOhIrEMnnPeucR46EJSUsXmXyx8E1lJ1+hhdQJz89+o YKHz59noPmgvCueuyw0DtwrRGmn/p08or6hOLt026+kDE6rSkBhhDVmiuKOV5fng6EmN sQYQ87RYYVj5Ganlcf6xrnwCN7vK1rZsc1/syFdTElR42G5CnlEp5v+JyjSPk/JSuzjP X+UshbWfgFcu9qe5BoJTXN46EWxKv34GedGfqEu0xfGxwbeMMDrX/W0+Er7lCSiapBFi ksfV8OIFhTZRKCR161y2goYpe/8PQtUE2zJ68NlITD5rjJzeXWLqcRiwV2tJRJl89D+a iQYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOTctWRU3HSw6u1dzTBgV6ytf7Xq1SlMUCAwRimCUlFiK7oXDSWtxMIqHtq5ivALQjHbhQPh3iL/aLEEQ== X-Received: by 10.159.38.73 with SMTP id 67mr4203038uag.136.1472115748153; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:02:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.51.77 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.51.77 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 02:02:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org> <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org> <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch> <278c940d-4b3b-2b8a-1aa5-f0991f1e6c8e@gmail.com> <57BEA0B0.3090308@jonasschnelli.ch> <756a4e04-c42d-cd61-794d-59f159c109b5@electrum.org> <57BEA775.4020701@jonasschnelli.ch> <57BEA866.5070801@jonasschnelli.ch> From: Pieter Wuille Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:02:27 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev , Marek Palatinus Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114950dc3cae27053ae1a885 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:02:33 -0000 --001a114950dc3cae27053ae1a885 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is not the place to discuss the merits and/or issues of these BIPs, only whether they should be treated as final. On Aug 25, 2016 10:51, "Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > As Luke pointed, BIP44 is already used by many wallets and to my knowledge > people don't have any real world issues with that, including loading funds > in another BIP44 wallet. I'm not saying that BIP44 is perfect from all > points of view, but IMO it just works for most use cases. Let's set it as > final, and propose competing standards which cover all your concerns. > > slush > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> > The development paradigm of "maybe detect funds" is not something we >> > should *not* encourage for Bitcoin IMO. >> >> Sorry. That was one "not" to many. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a114950dc3cae27053ae1a885 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is not the place to discuss the merits and/or issues of= these BIPs, only whether they should be treated as final.


On Aug 25, 2016 1= 0:51, "Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
As Luke pointed, BIP44 is already used by many wallets and to my= knowledge people don't have any real world issues with that, including= loading funds in another BIP44 wallet. I'm not saying that BIP44 is pe= rfect from all points of view, but IMO it just works for most use cases. Le= t's set it as final, and propose competing standards which cover all yo= ur concerns.

slush

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Jonas Sch= nelli via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou= ndation.org> wrote:
<= br> > The development paradigm of "maybe detect funds" is not some= thing we
> should *not* encourage for Bitcoin IMO.

Sorry. That was one "not" to many.

</jonas>


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a114950dc3cae27053ae1a885--