From: James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail•com>
To: nothingmuch@woobling•org,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] draft proposal: change forwarding (improved fungibility through wallet interoperability)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:06:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH+Axy5Qa+2YHLhmnoqLR-94QmWyePcckDjj+8jGrU37q51ZCA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAQdECAGuScCLoG_62g6G__yiyN8KRiPDBGYJ2pDBwxRCNFtZQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2132 bytes --]
Hi Yuval!
Sorry for reviving an old email thread. Could you describe what the UX
would be like, or how a wallet developer might implement this? Is the
intention that someone would open their non-private wallet, and choose an
option that slowly siphons their funds into a different app? Why would
anyone want that feature?
If the user is privacy-conscious, why did they choose the non-private
wallet to begin with? Why wouldn't they just move all their funds to the
private wallet so they can continue to use just one app?
And if the user is not privacy-conscious, they would never choose to enable
this option, so why would the wallet developer even bother to implement it?
From a product standpoint, I can't see how this would be useful, and
therefore I'm not sure why it needs to be a BIP. If I'm missing something,
please let me know!
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM Yuval Kogman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a method based on BIP32 (and optionally BIP44) for
> improving fungibility and on chain privacy with wallets for which this is
> not a primary concern, requiring minimal changes to allow such wallets to
> safely forward change outputs to more specialized wallets. This is intended
> to complement more comprehensive proposals such as BIP79.
>
> Note that this draft is still incomplete, there are open questions about
> the particular format to use. In its current form it proposes two viable
> options (and two more are included completeness) and though I have a slight
> preference for the first option, I remain undecided given the tradeoffs,
> and so I am writing the mailing list to solicit inputs/criticism.
>
> https://gist.github.com/nothingmuch/652f3a98089a0600637eadab738b2d6a
>
> Thanks to SirMeow, Adam Ficsor, and Adam Gibson for reviewing earlier
> versions and providing valuable feedback and suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Yuval
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3102 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-01 5:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-06 15:50 Yuval Kogman
2018-12-01 5:06 ` James MacWhyte [this message]
2018-12-01 15:33 ` Yuval Kogman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAH+Axy5Qa+2YHLhmnoqLR-94QmWyePcckDjj+8jGrU37q51ZCA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=macwhyte@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=nothingmuch@woobling$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox