BIP139: Wallet Metadata Backup Format

[pythcoiner]

This is a bip for wallet metadata backup format.
Mailing list post: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/ylPeOnEIhO8

[murchandamus]

Could you perhaps expound the relationship to #1951?

[seedhammer]

This BIP seems to overlap #2099. It would be ideal to have a single way of encoding wallet metadata.

[murchandamus]

Thanks for reviewing related work, @seedhammer!

[pythcoiner]

Thanks for review @seedhammer, I'll reply inline

[pythcoiner]

This BIP seems to overlap #2099. It would be ideal to have a single way of encoding wallet metadata.

I think they have different use case:

• I see whats offered in BIP393: Output Script Descriptor Annotations #2099 as a minimal backup that a user make once at wallet(descriptor) creation time, that contains only informations related to "scanning"
• Whats offered in this PR intends to be a format for backup/export of a complete wallet state, that could be also done later & recurently in the wallet lifetime.

[pythcoiner]

Something that I should add in the bip abstract is, that I see this bip as a "central repository" where a wallet implementer can "register" a field usage & share it's usage of the format in a test vector. The intend is not to force anyone to be interoperable in both way with every other implem, but rather to make it easy if one want to be interoperable in at least one way.

[murchandamus]

I think this also has overlap with BIPs 329. Perhaps @craigraw would be interested in taking a look.

[pythcoiner]

I've clauded a draft implem of this format on bitcoin core here and then added few fields and a transaction object here

[pythcoiner]

Could you perhaps expound the relationship to #1951?

added an Encryption section in order to link them, will update as soon as there is a BIP # for #1951

[murchandamus]

Just a quick first pass. I think I’d be interested in seeing a few more wallet developers take a look at this and provide their thoughts on how this would match their needs.

[pythcoiner]

@murchandamus thanks for your review, comments addressed.

[murchandamus]

Assigned BIP139

[murchandamus]

It took me a moment to figure out what the issue was: the preamble needed to be indented.

[pythcoiner]

For reviewers: I've addressed comments, then ran a survey over 13 potentials wallets condidates (not meaning they have shown interest, just I picked them)
the survey shows interesting frictions points so I reworked heavily the structure, It's almost done but I'll re-review early next week.

[jonatack]

Not a blocker, but if you have to re-push this diff should appease the CI typo checker.

--- a/.typos.toml
+++ b/.typos.toml
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ Toom = "Toom"
 
 [files]
 extend-exclude = [
+    "bip-0139/wallet_field_usage.md",
     "/*/*.csv",
     "/*/*.d*",
     "/*/*.go",

[murchandamus]

@pythcoiner: Thanks for the update. I take it that we should hold-off for our review until you have done another pass. Please let us know when you’re ready for us.