rich1.0npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrshttps://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23 📝 Original message:On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:49:38 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote: > On 04/23/2014 09:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > > Why do clients need to use the features in BIP 64? If Electrum doesn't > > want to use accounts, then it can just use account 0 for everything. > > Refund chains are > > As Andreas wrote earlier in this thread: "There is no "bare minimum". > Either you implement the "BIP" fully or not." > > What you suggest does not follow the principle of least surprise. > Suppose user imports his BIP64 compatible wallet into Electrum, which > claims it is BIP64 compatible, but actually implements just a subset of > the spec (sticking account index to 0). The user now sees just a > fraction of his coins and is puzzled. Any wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use* any account other than 0. Remember addresses are used to receive bitcoins; once the UTXOs are in the wallet, they are no longer associated with the address or any other details of how they were received. Luke