{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-03-12\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e For an emergency transition the user is probably better off with an\n\u003e explicit unstructured mass private key export, and a sweep function;\n\u003e and guaranteeing compatibility with that is much easier; and because\n\u003e it moves funds in one direction there is much less chance of going\n\u003e from secure to insecure.\n\nI haven't looked at the existing sweep implementations, but it would\nbe unfortunate if sweep functions were not available that create at\nleast the same number of keys, or possibly more, for the purposes of\nsweeping. I suppose there are different levels of emergency, where\nperhaps you want to sweep all at once in a single transaction and lose\nout on (already nebulous) privacy benefits. I say nebulous because\nbroadcasting a bunch of transactions all at the same time during the\nsweep can compromise privacy even when the transactions have no common\nancestor outputs.\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507"}