Topic: Deterministic wallet compatibility matrix - page 2. (Read 13916 times)

Thank you for making this list. I looked for something similar for quite some time, only to fail in finding it.

In the mnemonic-compatible tab it says there is no compatibility between breadwallet and MultiBit HD, which is not correct: I've successfully imported a seed from breadwallet in MultiBit HD. I needed to import it because I was looking to sign a message from one of the addresses in my seed (breadwallet doesn't have that functionality), and I managed to sign the message through MultiBit HD.

On another note, sad to see that Electrum is pretty much incompatible with everything else... I thought these new BIP standards (especially BIP 39) would help to unify seed usage throughout wallets... But that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe a new, more universal standard should kick in?

btcchris: I'm happy to see this, something that kills me about multisig is that it leads to vendor lock-in at the moment. Being able to orchestrate a 2-of-2 between two different multisig web wallets is the direction I see it going.

Btw, maybe note if the wallet sorts public keys in multi-signature addresses as there's a BIP for that now to encourage wallets to be compatible with eachother.

Thanks for spelling out all the details! I've updated the spreadsheet.

If you remember to let me know once new features are released, I'll update the spreadsheet to include them.

-Chris

Some info about the Coinomi wallet.

Nice job.
I was having issues with Mycelium on ios vs android a long time ago.  I figured it out with using pycoin and shared the information; however, you did a great job in showing in multiple wallets.

Kudos.

At least for Beta 7 the "Multiple Accounts" column is correct. I updated the sheet, and while I'm sure you're technically correct, I think it's slightly more confusing now, but I've no strong preference either way.

For BIP44, multiple account support is mandatory. So strictly speaking, MultiBit HD doesn't support BIP44 (if the "Multiple Accounts" column is right).

Do you mean BIP-39 passphrase support? That's a good idea (It'd probably be a requirement for "full" compatibility, but not for "partial" compatibility).

Would it also make sense to add one line for each software/hardware combination, e.g. Electrum/TREZOR, MultiBit HD/TREZOR, myTrezor/TREZOR, etc., since they might offer different levels of support? Or are all TREZORs pretty much the same? (and all btchips, etc.)

Unfortunately I don't own any hardware wallets, so that makes it more difficult for me.

Needs an additional column :

BIP-44 passphrase support yes/no

For example myTrezor support BIP-44 with passphrase, as does electrum's trezor plugin

However Ledger's Chrome wallet and electrum's btchip plugin are BIP-44 without passphrase support

Thank you for checking, I appreciate it.

There's already a comment attached to MultiBit HD's BIP-39 cell which mentions Beta 8 being a requirement. (I'm the same Chris who opened that issue on GitHub )

Looks correct for MultiBit HD compatibility / paths etc.

Note that we made a mistake with our BIP32 compatibility in the Beta 7 release (details here: https://github.com/bitcoin-solutions/multibit-hd/issues/445). It is fixed in the code now and will roll out in Beta 8.

That would be better, thanks. Fixed.

Just some clarification: the derivation path used by bitcoinj (and thus Bitcoin Wallet for Android) is specified in BIP-32. So it would be appropriate to use the term "BIP-32" in that column.

This is a first attempt at creating a compatibility matrix for deterministic wallets. In other words, it tries to answer the questions:

When using two different wallet apps from different devs, will I have the same list of addresses and the same balance if I:

• use the same mnemonic sentence (seed) in both?
• export a master private key from one into the other?
• export a master public key from one into the other (creating a watch-only wallet)?

For now, it's an Excel file available for viewing or downloading here: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=584F122BA17116EE%21313.

It has four tabs. The first, "Details", lists out (hopefully) all relevant details of various wallets that might make them compatible or not with one another.

The next three are calculated from the first; they try to answer the three corresponding questions above. (Sorry, but Excel Online doesn't render vertical text correctly, so they look a bit ugly online. Either download a local file, or hover over the wallet names in the first row to read them; they're in the same order as the wallet names in the first column.)

I'm definitely interested if anyone has any input; in particular I'm not at all confident that the Details tab has everything correct, and it's probably missing some deterministic wallets that I'm unaware of. If there are any wallet devs who could take a quick look at their wallet on the first tab to see if I got anything wrong, that'd be great!

I'm also not sure that the list of requirements (spelled out on the three right-most tabs) is sufficient to guarantee compatibility.

(Also: don't rely on this without doing your own testing first!)

I'm not sure where, if anywhere, this is headed, but it'd be nice to turn this into a set of web-based tables on GitHub, perhaps something jekyll-based like this. Again, input is most welcome.