rich1.0npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpghttps://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpgnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-03-12 📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote: > For an emergency transition the user is probably better off with an > explicit unstructured mass private key export, and a sweep function; > and guaranteeing compatibility with that is much easier; and because > it moves funds in one direction there is much less chance of going > from secure to insecure. I haven't looked at the existing sweep implementations, but it would be unfortunate if sweep functions were not available that create at least the same number of keys, or possibly more, for the purposes of sweeping. I suppose there are different levels of emergency, where perhaps you want to sweep all at once in a single transaction and lose out on (already nebulous) privacy benefits. I say nebulous because broadcasting a bunch of transactions all at the same time during the sweep can compromise privacy even when the transactions have no common ancestor outputs. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507