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; 
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:51:14 +0100
Message-ID: <mdsn73$qpn$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <54F32EED.6040103@electrum.org>	<CANEZrP23buJF0ENfrKGRuzpQ3Uod09s-kRcb3CBw1-OmUxEyZg@mail.gmail.com>	<550057FD.6030402@electrum.org>	<CANEZrP2UrRYG2wh3DHHj9B3Sp1X=n+gPCRcoj1Fouu4Lg157UA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJna-HhHkmOTqNW2R6=Cih+tM_Eeu5o1LBxA4ZNzp-6vm1p6fg@mail.gmail.com>	<CANEZrP2AhCfks7Q+16PHGB0ZEeWwbdbbQM_xj3ebrkgDBgbosg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAt2M1_zVXnp_EjtZHiP9wSq+cERgibZ_C992zZHtv+Lpmgsfw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1_zVXnp_EjtZHiP9wSq+cERgibZ_C992zZHtv+Lpmgsfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged
Precedence: list

On 03/12/2015 07:27 PM, Natanael wrote:
> 
> Den 12 mar 2015 17:48 skrev "Mike Hearn" <mike@plan99.net
> <mailto:mike@plan99.net>>:
>>>
>>> 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.