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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1Wd4By-0005I2-UU
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:54:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Wd4By-0003dK-8M
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:54:54 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id h18so284760igc.4
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.99.138 with SMTP id w10mr45999358icn.42.1398286489001;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.127.243 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5358260D.9040607@gk2.sk>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<201404232032.08740.luke@dashjr.org> <53582426.4030601@gk2.sk>
	<201404232041.14664.luke@dashjr.org> <5358260D.9040607@gk2.sk>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:54:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjk4M6+9R=McwWcWda0Pw4u9oGiBR5NDAwpq3dntG6vtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
	(pieter.wuille[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: 1Wd4By-0003dK-8M
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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 20:54:55 -0000

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk> wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 10:41 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> I don't see how. The user knows he has money in different subwallets. As long
>> as he has a way to specify which subwallet he is accessing in single-subwallet
>> clients, there shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Right. But these clients have no right to call themselves BIP64
> compatible then.

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?

According to the argument here mentioned earlier ("all or nothing"),
it is, as it will not break interoperability with other BIP64
software. Still, it doesn't support the accounts feature, and perhaps
that's fine?

-- 
Pieter