Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1WddI2-0003dk-6N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:23:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.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-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WddI0-00087S-QN
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:23:30 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1WddHr-0002Y7-8B for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:23:19 +0200
Received: from e179077249.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.77.249])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:23:19 +0200
Received: from andreas by e179077249.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1
	(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:23:19 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:23:05 +0200
Message-ID: <ljdd29$522$1@ger.gmane.org>
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: e179077249.adsl.alicedsl.de
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-)
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
	-0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1WddI0-00087S-QN
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP32 "wallet structure" in use? Remove it?
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:23:30 -0000

Does anyone use or plan to use the "wallet structure" part of the BIP32
document?

I suggest removing it from the document and maybe instead point at
BIP43. That new specification proposal just defines a "purpose" and
leaves everything else to the inventor of that purpose. The idea it that
over time a standard will evolve naturally rather than top-down.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0043.mediawiki

I'd volunteer to submit a pull request if I can see some level of
consent here.