On 08/16/2016 12:22 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It would be best if the hardware protocol were standardised, so the user > doesn't need a plugin of *any* sort... I notice some hardware wallets have > begun to implement (or reuse) Trezor's interface, so that would seem a good > place to start?
I also agree with this - the user experience would be a lot better without the need to install custom adapter software, especially for the desktop case. There could be two layers to the specification - the raw messages that need to be passed, and the transport mechanism to pass them (USB HID, QR code, audio...). For the most common case (USB), both layers could be defined, and other transports could be added later. This split already exists in the draft specification, though it's not very clear (URIs include return URIs that don't make sense for a pipe, for example). The existing URI scheme, while allowing disambiguate by manufacturer, provides no way to to enumerate available manufacturers or enabled wallets. This means that the "driver" would have to include a GUI to select this. Also, passing return URIs seems rather fragile - are there any other examples of protocols that use URIs for bidirectional IPC? Thomas _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
