Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd529-0007Zr-P1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:48:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.177; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd528-0005ME-UX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:48:49 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z11so1281521lbi.8 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.6.194 with SMTP id d2mr289850laa.54.1398289722225; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53582B52.70205@gk2.sk> <201404232118.58316.luke@dashjr.org> <535831BC.1090707@gk2.sk> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 (gmaxwell[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: 1Wd528-0005ME-UX Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:48:50 -0000 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > 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. Or implement them but in a form where the different wallets can have different security policies and thus wouldn't share a common piece of private key material. I can see it being pretty confusing to have multiple wallets which are both sharing a private key and not sharing a private key.