<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-03-11&#xA;📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:50 PM, devrandom &lt;c1.sf-bitcoin at niftybox.net&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; That said, I do agree that mnemonic phrases should be portable, and find&#xA;&gt; it unfortunate that the ecosystem is failing to standardize on phrase&#xA;&gt; handling.&#xA;&#xA;The fact remains that there are several apparently unresolvable&#xA;well-principled perspectives on this subject.&#xA;&#xA;(And I can speak to this personally: There are several BIPs in this&#xA;space that I&#39;d rather not see in product with my name on it.)&#xA;&#xA;Unless two wallets have exactly the same feature set, cross importing&#xA;keys is going to confuse or break something. Even if you&#39;re trying to&#xA;be fairly generic the testing overhead for all possible strategies and&#xA;structures is large. Expecting compatibility here would be like&#xA;expecting two large commercial accounting packages to support the same&#xA;internal file formats. Compatibility is only straight forward when the&#xA;feature set is as limited as possible.&#xA;&#xA;The space for weird behavior to harm users is pretty large... e.g. you&#xA;could load a key into two wallets, such that one can see all the funds&#xA;by the other, but not vice versa and and up losing funds by&#xA;incorrectly assuming you had no coins; or inadvertently rip of your&#xA;business partners by accounting for things incorrectly.&#xA;&#xA;Even ignoring compatibility, most demanded use cases here are ones&#xA;that create concurrent read/write use of single wallet without some&#xA;coordinating service is inherently somewhat broken because you can&#xA;double spend yourself, and end up with stalled and stuck transactions&#xA;and causing people to think you tried ripping them off.&#xA;&#xA;I certainly recognize the desirable aspects of just being able to load&#xA;a common wallet, and that inexperienced users expect it to just work.&#xA;But I don&#39;t think that expectation is currently very realistic except&#xA;within limited domains. It may be more realistic in the future when&#xA;the role of wallets is better established. I don&#39;t see any _harm_ in&#xA;trying to standardize what can be, I just don&#39;t expect to see a lot of&#xA;success.&#xA;&#xA;Ultimately, the most fundamental compatibility is guaranteed:  you can&#xA;always send your funds to another wallet. This always works and&#xA;guarantees that you are never locked in to a single wallet. It is well&#xA;tested and cannot drive any software in to weird or confused states.</html></oembed>