<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21977" dir="ltr">Right you are!</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21954" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21978" dir="ltr">I saw Thomas's email about Electrum 2.0 not supporting BIP39.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21952" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21951" dir="ltr">It seems he had the idea that the wordlist was a strict requirement yet it is not, it is unfortunate that Electrum did not go the route of BIP39. The wordlist is irrelevant and merely used to help build mnemonics.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_22047" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_22046" dir="ltr">Also as I've shown, you can work a version into it, I was going to actually propose it to the BIP39 authors but didn't think it was an issue.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21950" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21964" dir="ltr">I think BIP39 is fantastic.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21967" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21968" dir="ltr">I think Electrum 2.0 (And everyone) should use BIP39</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21949"> </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1426122660566_21947">On 2015-03-11 06:21 PM, Thy Shizzle wrote:<br>
> Hmmmm I don't think it's fair to say that there has been a failure to<br>
> standardise. From what I read earlier among the wallets, mostly it came<br>
> down to if a version was noted and the date. Assuming no date is<br>
> provided, it just means you are scanning the block chain from day 0 for<br>
> transactions right? Hardly a big deal as you will still recover funds right?<br>
<br>
Unfortunately there's more incompatibility than just the date issue:<br>
<br>
* seed: some follow BIP39, and some roll their own<br>
* HD structure: some follow BIP44, some BIP32 derivation, and some roll<br>
their own<br>
<br>
So actually very few wallets are seed-compatible, even ignoring the date<br>
question.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Version right now is irrelevant as there is only one version of BIP39<br>
> currently, probably this will change as 2048 iterations of HMACSHA512<br>
> will likely need to be up scaled in the future, I thought about adding<br>
> one extra word into the mnemonic to signify version, so if you have a 12<br>
> word mnemonic then you have 12 words + 1 word version. Version 1 has no<br>
> extra word, version 2 uses the first word on the list, version 3 uses<br>
> the second word on the wordlist, so on and so forth. Least that's what I<br>
> was thinking of doing if I ever had to record a version, won't effect<br>
> anything because entropy increases in blocks of 3 words so one extra<br>
> word can simply be thrown on the end.<br>
<br>
That's a reasonable solution.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> So in summary I feel that date can be handled by assuming day 0, and<br>
> version is not an issue yet but may become one and probably it is a good<br>
> idea to think about standardising a version into BIP39, I have<br>
> provided a seed idea for discussion.<br>
> <br>
> I don't think it is quite the doom and gloom I'm reading :)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> devrandom:<br>
> "I'd like to offer that the best practice for the shared wallet use case<br>
> should be multi-device multi-sig. The mobile has a key, the desktop has<br>
> a key and a third-party security oracle has a third key. The oracle<br>
> would have different security thresholds for countersigning the mobile.<br>
> <br>
> This way you can have the same overall wallet on all devices, but<br>
> different security profiles on different keys.<br>
> <br>
> That said, I do agree that mnemonic phrases should be portable, and find<br>
> it unfortunate that the ecosystem is failing to standardize on phrase<br>
> handling."<br>
<br>
-- <br>
devrandom / Miron</div></div></body></html>