Jonas Schnelli [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-06-19 📝 Original message:I agree with matejcik’s ...
đź“… Original date posted:2018-06-19
📝 Original message:I agree with matejcik’s point 1 to 3 and especially with point 4.
The mandatory flag (or optional-flag) makes much sense to me.
> -----------
>
> In general, the standard is trying to be very space-conservative,
> however is that really necessary? We would argue for clarity and ease of
> use over space constraints. We think more straightforward approach is
> desired, although more space demanding. What are the arguments to make
> this as small as possible? If we understand correctly, this format is
> not intended for blockchain nor for persistent storage, so size doesn’t
> matter nearly as much.
I don’t see any reasons why space would be an issue.
HWWs probably can’t handle PBST natively since it is not optimised for
presenting various informations in a signing-verification.
A single stream-in of a PSBT through USB (or similar channel) will not work in
many cases since HWW come often with very restrictive RAM constraints.
Furthermore, I forget to mention in my last mail, that registering (or defining)
a mime-type for PSBT would probably a great usability feature.
(Send PSBT by email/messanger and with dbl-click to open feature, etc.)
/jonas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180619/c263f67b/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:I agree with matejcik’s point 1 to 3 and especially with point 4.
The mandatory flag (or optional-flag) makes much sense to me.
> -----------
>
> In general, the standard is trying to be very space-conservative,
> however is that really necessary? We would argue for clarity and ease of
> use over space constraints. We think more straightforward approach is
> desired, although more space demanding. What are the arguments to make
> this as small as possible? If we understand correctly, this format is
> not intended for blockchain nor for persistent storage, so size doesn’t
> matter nearly as much.
I don’t see any reasons why space would be an issue.
HWWs probably can’t handle PBST natively since it is not optimised for
presenting various informations in a signing-verification.
A single stream-in of a PSBT through USB (or similar channel) will not work in
many cases since HWW come often with very restrictive RAM constraints.
Furthermore, I forget to mention in my last mail, that registering (or defining)
a mime-type for PSBT would probably a great usability feature.
(Send PSBT by email/messanger and with dbl-click to open feature, etc.)
/jonas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180619/c263f67b/attachment.sig>;