{"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 7:49:38 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote:\n\u003e On 04/23/2014 09:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Why do clients need to use the features in BIP 64? If Electrum doesn't\n\u003e \u003e want to use accounts, then it can just use account 0 for everything.\n\u003e \u003e Refund chains are\n\u003e \n\u003e As Andreas wrote earlier in this thread: \"There is no \"bare minimum\".\n\u003e Either you implement the \"BIP\" fully or not.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e What you suggest does not follow the principle of least surprise.\n\u003e Suppose user imports his BIP64 compatible wallet into Electrum, which\n\u003e claims it is BIP64 compatible, but actually implements just a subset of\n\u003e the spec (sticking account index to 0). The user now sees just a\n\u003e fraction of his coins and is puzzled.\n\nAny wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use* any \naccount other than 0. Remember addresses are used to receive bitcoins; once \nthe UTXOs are in the wallet, they are no longer associated with the address or \nany other details of how they were received.\n\nLuke"}