{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-24\n📝 Original message:Le 24/04/2014 09:21, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :\n\u003e \n\u003e It doesn't appear to me that reoccurring payments, receive accounts,\n\u003e multisig addresses, etc can be used with this proposal, but instead\n\u003e you must use a different purpose code and another BIP and are not\n\u003e compatible with the draft here.\n\u003e \n\u003e Am I misunderstanding it?   Will Electrum be limiting itself in this\n\u003e way?  I'd consider it a unfortunate loss of functionality if wallets\n\u003e couldn't implement reoccurring payment chains without making users\n\u003e generate entirely different wallets (which they couldn't share funds\n\u003e across) since addresses for recurring payments was one of the main\n\u003e motivations in BIP32.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\nNo, Electrum will not be limiting itself in this way. I believe that we\nare only at the beginning of exploring the different possibilities\nopened by HD wallets. It will probably take years until we have clear\nideas on what users need, what choices they make, and how to organize\neverything. Therefore it is too early to take decisions that might limit\nfuture functionality.\n\nI can see that it is very difficult today to find a consensus on wallet\nstructure between wallet developers. In addition, I changed my mind\nseveral times on these questions, so I guess I will probably need to\nchange things again in the future.\n\nThis is why I decided to include a version number in Electrum seeds. The\nversion number will be updated everytime the wallet structure changes. I\nknow many developers do not follow me on this, but that is something I\nam quite sure Electrum needs, despite all the other things I am not sure\nabout :)\n\nI think it is too early to aim for inter-wallet compatibility today. I\nguess we should postpone this goal, and move on with software releases.\nAs Andreas pointed out, we should just make sure that we do not import\nan incompatible seed in another wallet, because not recovering all your\nbitcoins would be a terrible user experience; the version number built\nin the seed will ensure that for Electrum."}