rich1.0npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47https://nostr.ae/npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-24 📝 Original message:Le 24/04/2014 09:10, Pieter Wuille a écrit : > To clarify: > BIP64 has a much stricter definition for accounts than BIP32. > > In BIP32, it is not well specified what accounts are used for. They > can be used for "subwallets", "receive accounts" (as in bitcoind's > account feature), "recurring payments", part of a chain used as > multisig addresses, ... determined individually for each index. > > In BIP64, they are strictly used for subwallets, and can't be used by > anything else. > yes, I saw that. In particular, bip64 stipulates that the wallet "never mixes coins across different accounts". This is not what Electrum does currently. The UI allows you to chose between two modes: activate a single account (and the wallet will only use UTXOs from that acccount), or activate all accounts (and spend from all of them simultaneously). Concerning multisig addresses, I have changed my mind: Electrum will use parallel BIP32 trees. A wallet will not mix standard and multisig accounts. I think that is better in terms of UX. I agree with Mike Hearn's view that wallets with multiple accounts are probably too difficult to deal with for most users. If a user feels the need to have different "accounting identities", they will probably create different wallet files, instead of creating bip32 subwallets. However, since multiple subwallets have been asked by many users, Electrum will propose them. But this should not be the default. More important, multiple accounts should never be required (in my previous implementation, they were required for multisig, because the wallet was creating multisig addresses in dedicated multisig accounts) Thomas