search

ksedgwic / Wallet32

20 stars 11 forks source link

Documentation of the implementation of BIP39 >>BIP32 #23

Open dabura667 opened 10 years ago

dabura667 commented 10 years ago

I am trying to convince all projects I am contributing to place simple information on their READMEs to assist users in restoring their funds.

My suggestion is the following:

  1. Read / contribute your feedback to the BIP0044 write-up, and keep it in mind for future projects. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki
  2. Place BIP32 HD path information as well as any non-standard usage of other BIPs (39 especially) in the README under "Independent Wallet Restoration" or some other name to denote the methodology for restoring the wallet.

Seeing as the wallet is already out in the open, switching to BIP44 is not prudent, but definitely I think that all HD wallets should publish restoration info in their READMEs.

Please let me know what you think of this proposal.

Thank you.

ksedgwic commented 10 years ago

Greetings,

Wallet32 is BIP-0044 compatible. Cross-compatibility with Trezor has been confirmed, for example.

The "Wallet Restoration" instructions sounds like a good idea; I'll add it to my TODO list.

Thanks!

Ken

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:40 AM, dabura667 notifications@github.com wrote:

I am trying to convince all projects I am contributing to place simple information on their READMEs to assist users in restoring their funds.

My suggestion is the following:

1.

Read / contribute your feedback to the BIP0044 write-up, and keep it in mind for future projects. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki 2.

Place BIP32 HD path information as well as any non-standard usage of other BIPs (39 especially) in the README under "Independent Wallet Restoration" or some other name to denote the methodology for restoring the wallet.

Seeing as the wallet is already out in the open, switching to BIP44 is not prudent, but definitely I think that all HD wallets should publish restoration info in their READMEs.

Please let me know what you think of this proposal.

Thank you.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ksedgwic/Wallet32/issues/23.

Ken Sedgwick Bonsai Software, Inc. http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ (510) 269-7334 ken@bonsai.com Public Key: http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ken.asc GPG Fingerprint: 851E 3B07 E586 0843 9434 5CC7 4033 3B9B 3F3F 9640

dabura667 commented 10 years ago

Awesome!

However, it seems like BIP44 is changing... So it might be best to have a restoration section on the FAQ.

ksedgwic commented 10 years ago

Can you point me to the recent change(s)?

There have been quite a few up to this point ... :-)

Ken

Ken Sedgwick Bonsai Software, Inc. http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ (510) 269-7334 ken@bonsai.com Public Key: http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ken.asc GPG Fingerprint: 851E 3B07 E586 0843 9434 5CC7 4033 3B9B 3F3F

dabura667 commented 10 years ago

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki

Some of the pull requests that were already merged all say BIP 44, some of them got into it pretty hard.

The reasoning I am going around the repos asking for a simple account tree on the README is because until BIP 44 gets set in stone (may be a while) there needs to be transparency for people who might not specialize in xyz wallet's language and not want to take the time to look into it.

idk how hard it could be to just say:

Main Account: m/0H/0H/0/0/keys New Accounts:m/0H/0H/x/0/keys Change Address to Account x: m/0H/0H/x/1/keys

Etc. and it would save many people a lot of headache.

As long as everything is BIP32 compliant / BIP39 compliant etc. a chain tree explanation is all that's needed really.