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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
