Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1Wd4w9-0007G1-86 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:42:37 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd4w8-0007ai-8R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:42:37 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id c1so128237igq.10 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:42:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.18.135 with SMTP id qg7mr46078044icb.5.1398289350753; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.127.243 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:42:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535831BC.1090707@gk2.sk> References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBjk4M6+9R=McwWcWda0Pw4u9oGiBR5NDAwpq3dntG6vtg@mail.gmail.com> <53582B52.70205@gk2.sk> <201404232118.58316.luke@dashjr.org> <CAAS2fgTwuBjGJjTC0UyYG5n603m=tf6226FGRo4cyVi93kzKkA@mail.gmail.com> <535831BC.1090707@gk2.sk> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:42:30 +0200 Message-ID: <CAPg+sBg3Ln-xyG6qdXE=Tf8AgnhsZKbygh1z5pk9zuO4AaHDiw@mail.gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Wd4w8-0007ai-8R Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:42:37 -0000 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk> wrote: > On 04/23/2014 11:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> Hopefully it would be clarified as only a MUST NOT do so silently... >> "I have funds split across two wallets and it WONT LET ME SPEND THEM" >> sounds like a terrible user experience. :) > > That is a subjective matter. To me it makes PERFECT SENSE that funds > across accounts NEVER MIX. One can still send funds from one account to > another and then perform another spend. In that case, maybe it makes sense to define another purpose id without accounts as well already. I believe many simple wallets will find multiple subwallets too burdening for the user experience, or not worth the technical complexity. -- Pieter