Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm2Wk-0005we-Fl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:20:38 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Tm2Wg-0008Rp-U4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:20:38 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id k13so6027069iea.8 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:20:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.203.74 with SMTP id ko10mr13210803igc.26.1356096029592; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.171.73 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:20:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:20:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Eric Lombrozo 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: 1Tm2Wg-0008Rp-U4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multiwallet support 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: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:20:38 -0000 On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > I started working on a new feature to allow for watch-only addresses in > wallets. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2121 > > In order to integrate this feature nicely into bitcoin / bitcoin, it will be > necessary to disable signing and privkey export operations for watch-only > addresses. Since disabling these things for only some of the keys in a > wallet but not others is an API nightmare and complicates CreateTransaction > logic, I propose adding multiple wallet capabilities and specifying upon > creation whether a wallet is a: > > 1) full signing wallet > - importaddress is disabled. > > 2) watch-only wallet > - signing and privkey export operations are disabled. > - importprivkey only saves the associated address but not the private key. > (behaves like importaddress
) > > In order to do the above, it will be necessary to add multiple wallet > support. Anyhow, that was my initial motivation for multiple wallets - but > obviously, there are a number of other reasons why people might want > multiple wallet support. > > ---------------------- > > Adding the ability to specify multiple wallets with associated names and > passphrases in the config file should be fairly straightforward. However, > exposing multiple wallets via RPC will be tricky as the existing RPC is not > designed to support multiple wallets. > > As to not break compatibility with the existing RPC calls, we can have a > main wallet which is always used as the default wallet. If the user wants to > use a different wallet, the name of the wallet would have to be specified in > the call. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we can use many of the > existing RPC calls (sendfrom, sendmany,sendtoaddress, etc...) since they all > have optional parameters already and it would be awkward to just tack on the > wallet name parameter at the end. Also, walletpassphrase is problematic as > it is not stateless. So it looks like we need a whole separate set of calls > which require a wallet name and passphrase (if the wallet is encrypted). > > For instance, > walletsendtoaddress > [comment] [comment-to] > > I welcome any proposals or suggestions as to how this should be done. > How about a rpc like "usewallet " that simply generalizes all the rpcs? And instead of explicitly deactivating rpcs that don't make sense, simply have them return an error. Or, for example, sendtoaddress on a watching wallet should actually return an unsigned raw transaction and a wallet specific message that tells you where to find the private key. I think it's desirable to not break compatibility but for this kind of feature compatibility should not get in the way of doing it right.