Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd3GJ-0005uZ-Bo for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:55:19 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd3GG-0003G8-4Q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:55:19 +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 4B972108019C; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:55:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Pavol Rusnak 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: <201404231944.14256.luke@dashjr.org> <53581952.1050602@gk2.sk> In-Reply-To: <53581952.1050602@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: <201404231955.09287.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: 1Wd3GG-0003G8-4Q Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net 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 19:55:19 -0000 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