Author: Jonas Schnelli 2016-08-17 11:34:35
Published on: 2016-08-17T11:34:35+00:00
The discussion is about the URI scheme versus the stdio/pipe approach for hardware wallets. According to one opinion, the URI scheme doesn't require wallet app level configuration, unlike the stdio/pipe approach that needs to configure details about the used hardware wallet. However, another person points out that hardware wallet vendors do most of the work on talking between the computer/mobile and the wallet on a lower level of communication using protocols like Google's ProtoBuf. The URI would be handled at the specific application level rather than near the actual hardware communications layer. It's proposed that the BIP should have a clear interface cut between wallet-with-unsigned-transaction and a signing-device. The detached-signing proposal doesn't duplicate work but moves the current plugin design into a separate application. It's intentional at a high level to allow maximum flexibility at the hardware interaction layer. Custom processes could be implemented behind the URI scheme, which is probably more efficient than writing a couple of wallet plugins where control over deployment and source-code is limited. Defining a standard on the hardware interaction layer is possible but requires a different approach.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T19:41:27.129602+00:00