rich1.0npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuqhttps://nostr.ae/npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuqnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23 📝 Original message:On 04/23/2014 09:00 PM, Tier Nolan wrote: > The point is to have a single system that is compatible over a large number > of systems. There is such system and it is called BIP32. On the other hand, in BIP64 we try to put a set of restrictions and rules on top of BIP32. There will always be some special usecases where BIP64 is not a good fit and there's no reason why you cannot use BIP32 in a different manner using a different "purpose" field. Examples: Electrum does not want to use accounts and they start to use scheme m/65'/change/address (where change = 0 or 1). Or Andreas Schildbach wants to have refunds chain so he uses m/66'/chain/address (where chain = 0, 1 or 2). We wanted to find one good solution that fits all, but unfortunately it turned out everyone wants something a little bit different. The point of the whole effort is that you can have ONE SINGLE BACKUP (master node) for all these independent purposes and suddenly claims such as "my wallet is BIP64 and BIP66 compatible" actually mean something as opposed to "BIP32 compatible" which actually means nothing except that the wallet author is capable of using HMAC in context of generating the tree. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol Rusnak <stick at gk2.sk>