{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-11\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e Sure, but I don't see wallets being able to _assume_ _remote_ parties\n\u003e have an HD wallet for a long, long time.  Interoperability common\n\u003e sense implies the environment will be heterogenous, perhaps forever,\n\u003e invalidating assume-each-party-uses-HD logic.\n\nMaybe never: you can implement a wallet that uses stealth addresses for\nchange, and doing appears to be advantageous in some scenarious with\nregard to privacy.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000a636d318d7384d2891c788af10e50b8d1e27b64df847f9117b\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 685 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140311/cb72c940/attachment.sig\u003e"}