From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:22:29 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.20; x86_64; ; )
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
In-Reply-To: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201608161922.30588.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:10:04 PM Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The BIP describes two approaches how to communicate (pipe and
> URI-scheme) with the signing-devices app, although, in my opinion, all
> major platform do support the URI approach (maybe we could drop the pipe
> approach then).

IMO it's kindof ugly to abuse URIs for communication. Stdio pipes are pretty 
universally supported, why not just use those?

On the other hand, no matter how the plugin is implemented, it's still a 
security risk, and requires installation (which the user might not have access 
for). It would be best if the hardware protocol were standardised, so the user 
doesn't need a plugin of *any* sort... I notice some hardware wallets have 
begun to implement (or reuse) Trezor's interface, so that would seem a good 
place to start?

Luke