From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wd4ZO-0005ww-6v for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:19:06 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Wd4ZM-0006uO-Vf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:19:06 +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 325AE108011E; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:19:35 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:18:57 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <53582B52.70205@gk2.sk> In-Reply-To: <53582B52.70205@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: <201404232118.58316.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: 1Wd4ZM-0006uO-Vf 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 21:19:06 -0000 On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 9:06:26 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote: > On 04/23/2014 10:54 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > > Would you consider software which scans all accounts as specified by > > BIP64, but has no user interface option to distinguish them in any > > way, view them independently, and has no ability to keep the coins > > apart... compatible with BIP64? > > This is not a desired behavior. Do you have any idea how to make it even > more explicit in the spec? Currently we just have (in Account sectrion): > > "This level splits the key space into independent user identities, so > the wallet never mixes the coins across different accounts." > > > I would like to make it obvious from the spec that if you mix funds > accross the accounts you are not doing a right thing and you are not > compliant to the spec. How do you get the more expected/usual behaviour of mixing funds between accounts? Only a very niche user base needs funds isolated... Luke