I'm not proposing anything other than keep using the same paths as before for existing software
and use the path which most existing software products use in new software.
Yes, by "your proposal" I understood that you want to somehow convince all wallet developers to use the "standard" 145 path.
No, I just suggested that using the 145' path for a NEW wallet software makes the most sense as almost everyone already uses it. I think Tom was the one trying to convince everyone else that the de facto standard is the 0' derivation path and everyone else should use it because a wallet with many users does it. I wrote my first message on the topic because I disagreed with that.
OK, I understand it now. You're right. The problem won't just go away tho because some wallets will keep using 0 path, so we should just focus on the scanning thing.
Обсуждают сегодня