+Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]

+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)

+ by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

+ (envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)

+ id 1WXYPu-00072w-Ci for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:58:30 +0000

+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org

+ designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)

+ client-ip=80.91.229.3;

+ envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;

+ helo=plane.gmane.org;

+Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3])

+ by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)

+ (Exim 4.76) id 1WXYPs-0001CM-Lj

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:58:30 +0000

+Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)

+ (envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)

+ id 1WXYPg-0005zu-Fp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:58:16 +0200

+Received: from f052197069.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.197.69])

+ by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))

+ id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;

+ Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:58:16 +0200

+Received: from andreas by f052197069.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1

+ (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00

+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;

+ Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:58:16 +0200

+X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/

+To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>

+Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:58:03 +0200

+Message-ID: <li16ac$q0k$1@ger.gmane.org>

+References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com> <F2C8C044-EF92-4CCE-9235-28CA7FCE3526@bitsofproof.com> <CAJHLa0PPAsBLgsy0vgPpUp=UzeR_fWUEzFb5+xtmODEk4MGPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBjwf1TcK1CGKVKFzYbV-78j8t-pav7=PEgG7Yqi6-yE7A@mail.gmail.com> <53344FF8.7030204@gk2.sk> <CAPg+sBhbx5vy_hewAkFPaiXHzSMNH0qLhEYGjPmQMjR5StP-tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJna-Hi0JnrF2_rUx0rGkdnsuCoaD01e3Gobpn+QqbL=D1Uivg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJna-HirtsGLfAhfUf9dAYEGWo6g=o=eAU187c2pdW8vDFGkPw@mail.gmail.com> <li12a7$i8o$1@ger.gmane.org>

+ <CAJna-HgVs1ahhNKswaKPudwc1AvrBGgdfbZwNCvUPHFzHbh1WA@mail.gmail.com>

+Mime-Version: 1.0

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org

+X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052197069.adsl.alicedsl.de

+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;

+ rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0

+In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HgVs1ahhNKswaKPudwc1AvrBGgdfbZwNCvUPHFzHbh1WA@mail.gmail.com>

+X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2

+X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)

+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.

+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.

+ -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,

+ no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org]

+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for

+ sender-domain

+ -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record

+ 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature,

+ domain signs all mail

+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record

+ -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay

+ domain

+X-Headers-End: 1WXYPs-0001CM-Lj

+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure

+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9

+Precedence: list

+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>

+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>

+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>

+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>

+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>

+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:58:30 -0000

+

+On 04/08/2014 05:46 PM, slush wrote:

+

+> I understand each client will implement things a little bit different,

+> for example the current plan is bitcoinj will hold all keys in memory

+> and start reusing keys on low resources. Electrum uses a chain for their

+> private purpose. Etc.

+>

+> It still doesn't mean that bitcoinj or Electrum cannot share the bare

+> minimum of BIP XX. Of course if somebody will use Electrum for 2to3

+> transactions and then move wallet to client which does not offer such

+> feature, it won't work. But I don't see that as a problem.

+

+There is no "bare minimum". Either you implement the "BIP" fully or not.

+There is no inbetween. Likewise, the standard cannot be extended unless

+you create a new standard that is based on the old (without re-using the

+path, of course).

+

+We're lightyears away from a BIP. Lets first create implementations and

+see if they are compatible in all possible combinations and situations.

+The moment any two apps have a different view on their wallets generated

+from the same seed, they're incompatible. In this case they should

+either fix the issue or intentionally choose incompatible paths, so that

+they don't see and spend "subsets" of each other.

+

+

+

+