Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd4GE-0000hs-0e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:59:18 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd4GC-0001K1-AN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:59:17 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29A40108011E; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:59:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:59:08 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201404232041.14664.luke@dashjr.org> <5358260D.9040607@gk2.sk> In-Reply-To: <5358260D.9040607@gk2.sk> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201404232059.09283.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Wd4GC-0001K1-AN 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 20:59:18 -0000 On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:43:57 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote: > On 04/23/2014 10:41 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > > I don't see how. The user knows he has money in different subwallets. As > > long as he has a way to specify which subwallet he is accessing in > > single-subwallet clients, there shouldn't be a problem. > > Right. But these clients have no right to call themselves BIP64 > compatible then. Then BIP 64 is pretty restrictive. Most end users really have no need for subwallet support.