From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qe7Xb-0008Vs-JK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:27:59 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Qe7XV-0007sV-RL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:27:59 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-67-77-87-72.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.77.87.72]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1EEBD708E8; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:27:47 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:20:07 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <1309801974.3423.80.camel@Desktop666> In-Reply-To: <1309801974.3423.80.camel@Desktop666> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107041420.08995.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours before Received: date -0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Qe7XV-0007sV-RL Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Encrypted Wallet Backward Compatibility 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: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:27:59 -0000 On Monday, July 04, 2011 1:52:53 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > There were several suggestions of renaming wallet.dat for encrypted > wallets. Obviously this has many advantages and disadvantages. It > breaks backup scripts, It shouldn't. Backup scripts should make a copy with the JSON-RPC call. What about changing the format of wallet.dat to something that triggers an error in the old clients? ie, maybe a dummy crafted-to-make-old-versions- complain file that simply means "use ewallet.dat"?