From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXXLk-0006YQ-Mt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:50:08 +0000 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; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXXLe-0008OO-Lj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:50:08 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WXXLW-00023V-Tm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:49:54 +0200 Received: from f052197069.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.197.69]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:49:54 +0200 Received: from andreas by f052197069.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:49:54 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:49:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: <53344FF8.7030204@gk2.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052197069.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1WXXLe-0008OO-Lj Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure 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: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:50:08 -0000 On 04/08/2014 02:43 PM, slush wrote: > After some off-list discussion about details with wallet developers, it > seems that structure > > m/'/'// > > 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.