Sean Gilligan

> I think we should not rename the package `kits` to `walletappkit`, at least not for now. OK, I'll leave this open but move to the 0.18 milestone.

We are currently discussing the next steps for Schnorr and Taproot in the #bitcoinj-developers room of our [Matrix space](https://matrix.to/#/#bitcoinj:matrix.org). If anyone is willing and able to contribute to early-stage development...

WIP PR #3342 adds P2TR support to **bitcoinj** keychains. The comment on that PR explains what additional work is needed.

We have begun work on a new implementation of secp256k1 including Schnorr signatures in https://github.com/bitcoinj/secp256k1-jdk. The current plan is to modify bitcoinj to use `secp256k1-api` which would allow both an...

This has been rebased and also updated to use `nixpkgs-unstable` and the `jdk21` package.

I would say that our efforts to provide a general purpose `Bech32` implementation are still a work-in-progress. For a little bit of the history, please see: * https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/issues/1710 * https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/pull/2099...

The incomplete/untested `module-info.java` that I was experimenting with looks like this: ``` module bitcoinj.parent.bitcoinj.wallettemplate.main { requires javafx.controls; requires javafx.fxml; requires java.desktop; //requires protobuf.javalite; //requires fontawesomefx; requires com.google.common; requires com.google.zxing; requires...

> > * [ ] Upgrade `core` to a newer `protobuf-java-lite` that has an "Automatic Module Name" > What protobuf version (range) is affected by this? Atm, we're not using...

I've been able to work around this issue when using Nix, by using the following: ``` jdk = pkgs.jdk17.override { # enabling JavaFX in the JDK allows `nix run .#wallettemplate`...

> ... I'm not sure if the rename makes sense. Packages typically contain more of something than just one. Generally they do contain more than one item/class. But this package...