1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>) id 1WdhVO-0003Ho-Aw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:53:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of fastmail.co.uk
designates 66.111.4.25 as permitted sender)
client-ip=66.111.4.25; envelope-from=jim618@fastmail.co.uk;
helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com;
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WdhVN-0001by-4O
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:53:34 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43])
by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E022149A
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211])
by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:53:27 -0400
Received: by web1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99)
id 0F572F00C06; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1398437607.23028.110362141.03111A2A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: 3RwKvASg52vQ2Ee9LJ8DTgphicqYEJb9akPjAByiC4b5 1398437607
From: Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-aafac2c3
In-Reply-To: <ljdd29$522$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <ljdd29$522$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:53:27 +0100
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(jim618[at]fastmail.co.uk)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (jim618[at]fastmail.co.uk)
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WdhVN-0001by-4O
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP32 "wallet structure" in use? Remove
it?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:53:34 -0000
Oh dear.
For reasons that are perfectly reasonable we are close to losing any chance of intra-client HD compatibility for BIP32 wallets.
In the next 12 months there will probably be collectively millions of users of our new wallets. I don't want them to suffer from vendor lockin.
Can we not agree on a lowest common denominator that we agree to support ?
An "HD Basic" if you like.
For entry level users we can keep things simple and any "HD Basic" bitcoin will be fully interoperable.
Sure, if you use anything fancy you'll be locked in to a particular wallet but a lot of users just want somewhere safe to put their bitcoin, spend it and receive it.
I appreciate standising everything is very difficult (if not impossible) but if we don't have a minimum of interoperability I think we'll do our users a disservice.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> Does anyone use or plan to use the "wallet structure" part of the BIP32
> document?
>
> I suggest removing it from the document and maybe instead point at
> BIP43. That new specification proposal just defines a "purpose" and
> leaves everything else to the inventor of that purpose. The idea it that
> over time a standard will evolve naturally rather than top-down.
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0043.mediawiki
>
> I'd volunteer to submit a pull request if I can see some level of
> consent here.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
> Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
> Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
> Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
http://bitcoin-solutions.co.uk
|
