See some replies inline. (quoted text from BIP draft)
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:51:15 +
> From: Robert Spigler
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Signature and Script Independent Hierarchy for
> Deterministic Wallets.
> There are many issues with the current standards. As background, BIP 44/49/84
> The SNICKER recovery process is, of course, only required for wallet
recovery and not normal wallet use, so I don't think a small amount of
round-trip communication between the hot wallet and the cold wallet is
too much to ask---especially since anyone using SNICKER with a
watching-only wallet
Hi all,
waxwing, ThomasV, and I recently had a discussion about implementing SNICKER in
Electrum; specifically the "Receiver" role. To me, SNICKER is an interesting
proposal, due to the non-interactivity and because it seems it would be easy to
implement the "Receiver" role in a light wallet.
Hi Kenshiro,
That is not how the BIP process works. Instead of requesting the creation
of a BIP, you just create one. :)
Re CT in Bitcoin, I have my doubts whether you can get consensus for that.
>From section 4.6 of the Bulletproofs paper [0]:
"Bulletproofs ... are computationally binding. An
Do you specifically want to support changing the language of seed
words, while keeping the bip32 root seed they generate unchanged?
What is the usecase for this?
You mention that BIP39 already supports a few different languages.
While this is true, many (I would guess most!) wallets only
support
