Hi I have a small interjection about the point on error correction (excuse me if it seems elementary). Isn't there an argument to be made where a wallet software should never attempt to figure out the 'correct' address, or in this case private key? I don't think it's crazy to suggest somebody could import a slightly erroneous WIF, the software gracefully error-corrects any problem, but then the user copies that error onward such as in their backup processes like a paper wallet. I always hate to advocate against a feature, I'm just worried too much error correcting removes the burden of exactitude and attention of the user (eg. "I know I can have up to 4 errors").
I'm pretty sure I read those arguments somewhere in a documentation or issue tracker/forum post. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the bigger picture in this particular case, but I was just reminded of that concept (even if it only applies generally). Thanks, AJ West On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev < email@example.com> wrote: > On 17.09.2017 04:29, Pieter Wuille wrote: > > > > This has been a low-priority thing for me, though, and the computation > work > > to find a good checksum is significant. > > > > Thanks for the info. I guess this means that a bech32 format for private > keys is not going to happen soon. Even if such a format was available, > the issue would remain for segwit-in-p2sh addresses, which use base58. > > The ambiguity of the WIF format is currently holding me from releasing a > segwit-capable version of Electrum. I believe it is not acceptable to > use the current WIF format with segwit scripts; that would just create > technological debt, forcing wallets to try all possible scripts. There > is a good reason why WIF adds a 0x01 byte for compressed pubkeys; it > makes it unambiguous. > > I see only two options: > 1. Disable private keys export in Electrum Segwit wallets, until a > common WIF extension has been agreed on. > 2. Define my own WIF extension for Electrum, and go ahead with it. > > Defining my own format does make sense for the xpub/xprv format, because > Electrum users need to share master public keys across Electrum wallets. > It makes much less sense for WIF, though, because WIF is mostly used to > import/sweep keys from other wallets. > > I would love to know what other wallet developers are going to do, > especially Core. Are you going to export private keys used in segwit > scripts in the current WIF format? > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev