{
  "txid": "78fd8b9931a9650a5b3e73c3e3a129f287a5d52efd29b831d12499ac2f65e23c",
  "block_height": 0,
  "time": null,
  "app": "treechat",
  "type": "reply",
  "map_content": "Very cool! Synchronicity :)\r\nFor starters, brc100 as I understand it defines how wallets talk to each other (an interoperability standard). It\u2019s not a wallet spec per se. You can think of it like this: a wallet can use brc-42 (BKDS) for key derivation AND be brc100 compatible for app interaction. But wouldn\u2019t necessarily have to be. \r\nSo a non-custodial wallet like Simply Cash can use brc 42/43. Yes.\r\nBut you couldn\u2019t convert simply cash to brc  42/43 because the keys would be different. But I suppose the wallet could implement the new brc42 key scheme - but the assets wouldn\u2019t talk to each other. And it would be a mess. \ud83e\udd37\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2640\ufe0f \r\nAlso, you don\u2019t need \u201cxpub\u201d in a BRC 42/43 key system because xpub tells you where you are in a hierarchical key structure (BIP 32/44) which you no longer have/need in brc42. \r\nDoes this make sense? Did I get at your question?",
  "media_type": "text/markdown",
  "filename": "|",
  "author": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "display_name": "bridget",
  "channel": null,
  "parent_txid": "dfe6f0a3b746a0cfb20de03c4596f217747eccf254e0d67d297b01c0979efc54",
  "ref_txid": null,
  "tags": null,
  "reply_count": 0,
  "like_count": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-12-20T19:24:28.000Z",
  "media_url": null,
  "aip_verified": true,
  "has_access": true,
  "attachments": [],
  "ui_name": "bridget",
  "ui_display_name": "bridget",
  "ui_handle": "bridget",
  "ui_display_raw": "bridget",
  "ui_signer": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "ref_ui_name": "unknown",
  "ref_ui_signer": "unknown"
}