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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Wd529-0007Zr-P1
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:48:49 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.177; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f177.google.com; 
Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Wd528-0005ME-UX
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:48:49 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z11so1281521lbi.8
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.6.194 with SMTP id d2mr289850laa.54.1398289722225; Wed,
	23 Apr 2014 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBg3Ln-xyG6qdXE=Tf8AgnhsZKbygh1z5pk9zuO4AaHDiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjk4M6+9R=McwWcWda0Pw4u9oGiBR5NDAwpq3dntG6vtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<53582B52.70205@gk2.sk> <201404232118.58316.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgTwuBjGJjTC0UyYG5n603m=tf6226FGRo4cyVi93kzKkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<535831BC.1090707@gk2.sk>
	<CAPg+sBg3Ln-xyG6qdXE=Tf8AgnhsZKbygh1z5pk9zuO4AaHDiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTiCjoZd6-3DzMeeTSSsTeZjoN3pmt-5PHAfeZtCieTpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
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: 1Wd528-0005ME-UX
Cc: Bitcoin Development <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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:48:50 -0000

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> In that case, maybe it makes sense to define another purpose id
> without accounts as well already.
>
> I believe many simple wallets will find multiple subwallets too
> burdening for the user experience, or not worth the technical
> complexity.

Or implement them but in a form where the different wallets can have
different security policies and thus wouldn't share a common piece of
private key material.  I can see it being pretty confusing to have
multiple wallets which are both sharing a private key and not sharing
a private key.