Wallet Labels Export Format

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 329 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: This document specifies a format for the export of labels that may be attached to various common types of records in a wallet.
3. Name the object that changes: BIP39, BIP32, BIP44.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 329 at the status the text itself states: Draft.
• The object that has to change is BIP39, BIP32, BIP44. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Wallet support is not the same as consensus validity.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What is covered by the signed bytes in Wallet Labels Export Format?
• Can the same signature be replayed on another chain, account, or message?
• Which primitive does the text require: BIP39, BIP32, BIP44?

Terms

BIP 329

The public text titled Wallet Labels Export Format.

Draft

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A signature that does not commit to what the user saw can be replayed into a different spend, a different chain, or a different message.

What the design proposes

• This document specifies a format for the export of labels that may be attached to various common types of records in a wallet.
• The export and import of funds across different Bitcoin wallet applications is well defined through standards such as BIP39, BIP32, BIP44 etc.
• These standards are well supported and allow users to move easily between different wallets.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The export and import of funds across different Bitcoin wallet applications is well defined through standards such as BIP39, BIP32, BIP44 etc.
• Locate BIP39, BIP32, BIP44 in BIP 329 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A signature scheme is not a privacy system. It hides the signer only if the protocol says so.
• Wallet support is not the same as consensus validity.
• The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 329 when a pitch says 'Wallet Labels Export Format' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.