{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:35:50 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote:\n\u003e On 04/23/2014 10:32 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e \u003e f) I missed the part where BIP 32 redefined \"account\" to mean \"subwallet\"\n\u003e \u003e instead of what has traditionally been called \"account\" in Bitcoin.\n\u003e \n\u003e Ah, okay. The last time I saw Bitcoin-qt it was still using independent\n\u003e addresses.\n\nIt is. Accounts have been a bitcoind feature since before 0.4.\n\n\u003e \u003e In that case, single-subwallet wallet software probably needs to have the\n\u003e \u003e user provide a subwallet number in addition to the seed.\n\u003e \n\u003e Which brings us back to my original complaint that the user can be\n\u003e confused because he doesn't see all his funds.\n\nI don't see how. The user knows he has money in different subwallets. As long \nas he has a way to specify which subwallet he is accessing in single-subwallet \nclients, there shouldn't be a problem.\n\nLuke"}