> - Visually Comparing two keys to find if they are same (Important)
> - 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

What would be the downside of encoding the same key with different metadata 
(resulting in different "visual strings“)?
If you import it into the same software, it would be trivial to detect it. If 
you import it into another software, it probably doesn’t matter.

Visual comparing is eventually a broken concept (agree with Greg) and I doubt 
that this property is important, and IMHO basic metadata seems more important 
then this - very likely irrelevant - visual property.

Also, I think a recovery based on a sole xpriv (or + limited amount of 
meta-data as described in this proposal) is a disaster recovery (or forensic 

Long term, I would wish, if wallet-metadata including transaction based user 
metadata would be backed up - after encrypted with a key that can be derived 
from the seed - in a way, where you need the seed to recover that backup thus 
it can be stored in cheap, insecure spaces.

> In fact, same could be argued to add birthday to WIF private key format to 
> let wallet discover funds faster.

The proposal I made can be seen as a replacement for WIF (it can replace WIF 
and xpriv/xpub) since it can encode a single private key into 275bits (still 
pretty short Bech32 string).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to