Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YW8Cf-00055H-KB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:51:29 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.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; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YW8Ce-00081x-5P for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:51:29 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YW8CX-0004g9-Ks for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:51:21 +0100 Received: from f052230195.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.230.195]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:51:21 +0100 Received: from andreas by f052230195.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:51:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:51:14 +0100 Message-ID: References: <54F32EED.6040103@electrum.org> <550057FD.6030402@electrum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052230195.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YW8Ce-00081x-5P Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:51:29 -0000 On 03/12/2015 07:27 PM, Natanael wrote: > > Den 12 mar 2015 17:48 skrev "Mike Hearn" >: >>> >>> b) "Creation date" is just a short-term hack. >> >> >> I agree, but we need things to be easy in the short term as well as > the long term :) >> >> The long term solution is clearly to have the 12 word seed be an > encryption key for a wallet backup with all associated metadata. We're > heading in that direction one step at a time. Unfortunately it will take > time for wallets to start working this way, and all the pieces to fall > into place. Restoring from the block chain will be a semi regular > operation for users until then. > > This have been mentioned a few times before, and what I think is > necessary is to create a common file format that can be interpreted by a > library which all wallets can use. I see it as similar as the work to > create libconsensus for parsing the blockchain. I'm afraid this will never fly. Wallets are just too different and that's a good thing! For example, by design choice Bitcoin Wallet and bitcoinj doesn't support multiple accounts. How would it ever import wallets from MultiBit or Mycelium? Bitcoinj-based wallets could probably share the bitcoinj protobuf wallet format (or whatever format we will be at the time of the "merge" – we already have tons of requirements piling up!). This would mean bitcoinj is the "consensus library equivalent" you were mentioning.