[bisq-network/projects] Specify interface and architecture for wallet and blockchain data modules (#52)

chimp1984 notifications at github.com
Sun May 23 17:30:21 CEST 2021


Yes agree an interface for providing the implementations `capability` would be useful. Though I think we should focus on wallets which support all main use cases. Some blockchains like Monero will be excluded for some protocols due lack of some features (timelock), so that will an additional restriction we have to keep in mind.

I see a RFC document optional at that level, but you can start a draft for it if you think it helps.

Re Electrum/BitcoinJ: So the Electrum API does not support all the required functionality we need? That would be bad. Maybe we can extend it? I have my concerns to use BitcoinJ again due all the issues. Also having the wallet in the same process has higher security risks. 
For constructing a transaction we could use different approaches as its now in BitcoinJ (where we can construct it on OpCode level). For instance to use a byte representation of the script and replacing the keys which are marked as placeholders (Comit seems to use such an approach).





-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/projects/issues/52#issuecomment-846581129
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210523/8788b18a/attachment.htm>


More information about the bisq-github mailing list