From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:55:08 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<201404231944.14256.luke@dashjr.org> <53581952.1050602@gk2.sk>
In-Reply-To: <53581952.1050602@gk2.sk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201404231955.09287.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:49:38 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 09:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > Why do clients need to use the features in BIP 64? If Electrum doesn't
> > want to use accounts, then it can just use account 0 for everything.
> > Refund chains are
> 
> As Andreas wrote earlier in this thread: "There is no "bare minimum".
> Either you implement the "BIP" fully or not."
> 
> What you suggest does not follow the principle of least surprise.
> Suppose user imports his BIP64 compatible wallet into Electrum, which
> claims it is BIP64 compatible, but actually implements just a subset of
> the spec (sticking account index to 0). The user now sees just a
> fraction of his coins and is puzzled.

Any wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use* any 
account other than 0. Remember addresses are used to receive bitcoins; once 
the UTXOs are in the wallet, they are no longer associated with the address or 
any other details of how they were received.

Luke