Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113

2016-08-18 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
Fine by me to update BIP68 and BIP112 to Final status. The forks have activated. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should > progress to > Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear > o

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Status updates for BIP 9, 68, 112, and 113

2016-08-18 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Friday, July 15, 2016 4:46:57 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:52:37PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:46:28 PM Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > > I'm not sure why it is labeled as only "Informational" in the first > > > place, as BIP9 i

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard

2016-08-18 Thread Nicolas Bacca via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi > > > I have some experience with hardware wallet development and its > > integration and I know it's a mess. But it is too early to define such > > rigid standards yet. Also, TREZ

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard

2016-08-18 Thread Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
Hi > I have some experience with hardware wallet development and its > integration and I know it's a mess. But it is too early to define such > rigid standards yet. Also, TREZOR concept (device as a server and the > primary source of workflow management) goes directly against your > proposal of wa

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard

2016-08-18 Thread Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Jonas Schnelli wrote: > I agree that BIP70 is a mess (including the bitcoin:// additions). The > proposed URI scheme would be completely different. This reminds me https://xkcd.com/927/ I have some experience with hardware wallet development and its integratio

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard

2016-08-18 Thread Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
Hi > The main benefit is that you don't need "standard" to solve problem, but > use natural tools in given environment and programming stack. Build a > "standard" on top of URI protocol is a huge limitation, which does not > give any advantage. Standards can help an ecosystem to grow, can help to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard

2016-08-18 Thread Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev
> Can you elaborate what benefits you would get from the library approach and how the library API would be different form the proposed URI-scheme? The main benefit is that you don't need "standard" to solve problem, but use natural tools in given environment and programming stack. Build a "standar