<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-24&#xA;📝 Original message:Le 24/04/2014 09:21, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; It doesn&#39;t appear to me that reoccurring payments, receive accounts,&#xA;&gt; multisig addresses, etc can be used with this proposal, but instead&#xA;&gt; you must use a different purpose code and another BIP and are not&#xA;&gt; compatible with the draft here.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Am I misunderstanding it?   Will Electrum be limiting itself in this&#xA;&gt; way?  I&#39;d consider it a unfortunate loss of functionality if wallets&#xA;&gt; couldn&#39;t implement reoccurring payment chains without making users&#xA;&gt; generate entirely different wallets (which they couldn&#39;t share funds&#xA;&gt; across) since addresses for recurring payments was one of the main&#xA;&gt; motivations in BIP32.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&#xA;No, Electrum will not be limiting itself in this way. I believe that we&#xA;are only at the beginning of exploring the different possibilities&#xA;opened by HD wallets. It will probably take years until we have clear&#xA;ideas on what users need, what choices they make, and how to organize&#xA;everything. Therefore it is too early to take decisions that might limit&#xA;future functionality.&#xA;&#xA;I can see that it is very difficult today to find a consensus on wallet&#xA;structure between wallet developers. In addition, I changed my mind&#xA;several times on these questions, so I guess I will probably need to&#xA;change things again in the future.&#xA;&#xA;This is why I decided to include a version number in Electrum seeds. The&#xA;version number will be updated everytime the wallet structure changes. I&#xA;know many developers do not follow me on this, but that is something I&#xA;am quite sure Electrum needs, despite all the other things I am not sure&#xA;about :)&#xA;&#xA;I think it is too early to aim for inter-wallet compatibility today. I&#xA;guess we should postpone this goal, and move on with software releases.&#xA;As Andreas pointed out, we should just make sure that we do not import&#xA;an incompatible seed in another wallet, because not recovering all your&#xA;bitcoins would be a terrible user experience; the version number built&#xA;in the seed will ensure that for Electrum.</html></oembed>