Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YVyvR-0006I8-BT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:57:05 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YVyvP-0002W6-D0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:57:05 +0000 Received: from mfilter30-d.gandi.net (mfilter30-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.161]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC571720BA for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:56:57 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter30-d.gandi.net Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]) by mfilter30-d.gandi.net (mfilter30-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QORE8CnJkIKo for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:56:55 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 78.53.2.206 Received: from [192.168.1.45] (f053002206.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.53.2.206]) (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C134A1720BF for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:56:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <550154D7.6090900@electrum.org> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:56:55 +0100 From: Thomas Voegtlin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <54F32EED.6040103@electrum.org> <550057FD.6030402@electrum.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1YVyvP-0002W6-D0 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:57:05 -0000 Hi Andreas, I don't think it's a problem that BIP43 is tied to BIP32. What I don't like is that you have to explore branches of the derivation tree, in order to know if there is a wallet. As a result, it is not possible for the software to give a negative answer, like "this wallet is empty", because you do not know if you have explored all the possible derivations; a new one may have been added after the software was written= . With a version number, you can answer "sorry this seed is not recognized by me", and you do not need to be online to do that. If you are online, you can answer "this wallet is empty" after exploring = it. Le 11/03/2015 16:31, Andreas Schildbach a =E9crit : > Thanks Thomas, for sharing your experience! >=20 > I'd like know why you think it's a problem that BIP43 is tied to BIP32? > I understand we all agreed at least on the BIP32-derivation spec > (excluding the BIP32-hierarchy spec)? >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sp= onsored > by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub = for all > things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership bl= ogs to > news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join th= e=20 > conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >=20 >=20