{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:On 04/23/2014 09:00 PM, Tier Nolan wrote:\n\u003e The point is to have a single system that is compatible over a large number\n\u003e of systems.\n\nThere is such system and it is called BIP32.\n\nOn the other hand, in BIP64 we try to put a set of restrictions and\nrules on top of BIP32. There will always be some special usecases where\nBIP64 is not a good fit and there's no reason why you cannot use BIP32\nin a different manner using a different \"purpose\" field.\n\nExamples: Electrum does not want to use accounts and they start to use\nscheme m/65'/change/address (where change = 0 or 1). Or Andreas\nSchildbach wants to have refunds chain so he uses m/66'/chain/address\n(where chain = 0, 1 or 2).\n\nWe wanted to find one good solution that fits all, but unfortunately it\nturned out everyone wants something a little bit different.\n\nThe point of the whole effort is that you can have ONE SINGLE BACKUP\n(master node) for all these independent purposes and suddenly claims\nsuch as \"my wallet is BIP64 and BIP66 compatible\" actually mean\nsomething as opposed to \"BIP32 compatible\" which actually means nothing\nexcept that the wallet author is capable of using HMAC in context of\ngenerating the tree.\n\n-- \nBest Regards / S pozdravom,\n\nPavol Rusnak \u003cstick at gk2.sk\u003e"}