From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TlyME-0005g2-E7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:53:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.46; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TlyM9-0004vO-5I for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:53:30 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id bh2so2676482pad.19 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:53:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.234.229 with SMTP id uh5mr37541746pbc.123.1356079999339; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-72-130-140-12.san.res.rr.com. [72.130.140.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hs2sm6638719pbc.22.2012.12.21.00.53.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:53:18 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7AD35CF4-8C03-4D70-B3F9-F58F2329330B" Message-Id: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:53:16 -0800 To: Bitcoin Dev Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1TlyM9-0004vO-5I Subject: [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 08:53:30 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7AD35CF4-8C03-4D70-B3F9-F58F2329330B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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. --Apple-Mail=_7AD35CF4-8C03-4D70-B3F9-F58F2329330B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I = started working on a new feature to allow for watch-only addresses in = wallets. https://github.com/b= itcoin/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 <address for privkey>)

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 <walletname> = <passphrase> <bitcoinaddress> <amount> [comment] = [comment-to]

I welcome any proposals or = suggestions as to how this should be = done.


= --Apple-Mail=_7AD35CF4-8C03-4D70-B3F9-F58F2329330B--