Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
	designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=80.91.229.3;
	envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
	helo=plane.gmane.org; 
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:49:43 +0200
Message-ID: <li12a7$i8o$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>	<F2C8C044-EF92-4CCE-9235-28CA7FCE3526@bitsofproof.com>	<CAJHLa0PPAsBLgsy0vgPpUp=UzeR_fWUEzFb5+xtmODEk4MGPVQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPg+sBjwf1TcK1CGKVKFzYbV-78j8t-pav7=PEgG7Yqi6-yE7A@mail.gmail.com>	<53344FF8.7030204@gk2.sk>	<CAPg+sBhbx5vy_hewAkFPaiXHzSMNH0qLhEYGjPmQMjR5StP-tw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJna-Hi0JnrF2_rUx0rGkdnsuCoaD01e3Gobpn+QqbL=D1Uivg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJna-HirtsGLfAhfUf9dAYEGWo6g=o=eAU187c2pdW8vDFGkPw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HirtsGLfAhfUf9dAYEGWo6g=o=eAU187c2pdW8vDFGkPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
Precedence: list

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.