On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 6:30 AM, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The idea to add birthdate and gap limit sounds very good and addresses lots > of problems users are facing. > > However, adding birthday to keys breaks two basic properties > > - Visually Comparing two keys to find if they are same (Important)
Can you explain exactly what you mean there? I can think of to plausible meanings (that two valid keys could differ by only a single symbol, which wouldn't be true due to the checksum and could be made even stronger if we thought that would be useful or I think you could also be complaining that the same "key material" could be encoded two ways which I think is both harmless and unavoidable for anything versioned). > - Different wallet software could set different birthday/gap limit. creating > different xpub/xprv for the same set of mathematically derived individual > keys. This removes the decoupling between key and wallet metadata Personally, I think it's a mistake to believe that any key format can really make private keying material strongly compatible between wallets. At best you can hope for a mostly compatible kind of recovery handling. But the lookahead amount may be pretty integral to the design of the software, so signaling it may not mean the other side can obey the signal... but that wouldn't make the signal completely useless. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
