|
Title: Support of BIP0039 Reference Word List Post by: jron on June 07, 2014, 04:50:43 PM I noticed that ThomasV was listed as a contributer to BIP0039:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki It looks like greenaddress, bitcoinj based wallets (MultiBit, Hive, Bitcoin Wallet, etc) and Trezor will all be using this option. Are there plans to allow this format in Electrum for the sake of compatibility? Title: Re: Support of BIP0039 Reference Word List Post by: Abdussamad on June 08, 2014, 09:47:12 AM It doesn't look like Electrum is going to be adopting that word list:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623606.0 But other parts of that spec are being used. Like the mnemonic to seed function: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/31226b8a34c92b3e6c71cf4fab7c56bf73fe54e0/lib/bitcoin.py#L116 I like to think we'd be able to use numeric bip32 private keys from other software in electrum. Or install watch only wallets using extended public keys generated offline. Title: Re: Support of BIP0039 Reference Word List Post by: ThomasV on June 18, 2014, 10:55:19 AM My contribution to bip39 was to make it independent from the dictionnary used.
That means you can use whichever word list you want with bip39, even a chinese wordlist not supported by your bitcoin client. However, this does not solve the compatibility issue: The real problem is wallet structure, and there is no agreement on that between wallets developers. Thus, it will not be possible to import Electrum seeds in other wallets, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the wordlist. Title: Re: Support of BIP0039 Reference Word List Post by: dabura667 on June 22, 2014, 11:11:57 AM However, this does not solve the compatibility issue: The real problem is wallet structure, and there is no agreement on that between wallets developers. What are your thoughts on BIP-0044? Do you think that a standardization of HD wallets in this fashion will be a good way of structuring? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki Title: Re: Support of BIP0039 Reference Word List Post by: ThomasV on June 23, 2014, 08:39:17 AM However, this does not solve the compatibility issue: The real problem is wallet structure, and there is no agreement on that between wallets developers. What are your thoughts on BIP-0044? Do you think that a standardization of HD wallets in this fashion will be a good way of structuring? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki yes, I am considering using it. However, I think that it will not be compatible with Multibit, which will not support multiple accounts afaik. Also, it is probably a bit incomplete: * it does not say anything about multisig wallets. * it does not say if the same gap limit applies to change addresses. * it does not make any recommendation about waiting for confirmations before generating new addresses. |