1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Tm74F-00043r-6d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:11:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.41; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-da0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-da0-f41.google.com ([209.85.210.41])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Tm74E-0006As-61
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:11:31 +0000
Received: by mail-da0-f41.google.com with SMTP id e20so2223254dak.28
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:11:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.66.73.138 with SMTP id l10mr39232848pav.44.1356113484398;
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:11:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-72-130-140-12.san.res.rr.com.
[72.130.140.12])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ug6sm7365933pbc.4.2012.12.21.10.11.22
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRG6kY8ke4hTdUjVBB1dmCppmzwo7qmOM-ytKS1299Z1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:11:21 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F31D463-26FA-4EC1-8571-4BAF1C4EE941@gmail.com>
References: <B03D534F-BAB6-4068-A8B4-AE28764F3D88@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRG6kY8ke4hTdUjVBB1dmCppmzwo7qmOM-ytKS1299Z1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
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
(elombrozo[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: 1Tm74E-0006As-61
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Multiwallet support
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: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:11:31 -0000
I like that idea. I'm close to having something working along those =
lines. Hopefully I'll be able to push something by tonight.
>=20
> How about a rpc like "usewallet <foo> <normal RPC>" that simply
> generalizes all the rpcs?
>=20
> And instead of explicitly deactivating rpcs that don't make sense,
> simply have them return an error. Or, for example, sendtoaddress on
> a watching wallet should actually return an unsigned raw transaction
> and a wallet specific message that tells you where to find the private
> key.
>=20
> I think it's desirable to not break compatibility but for this kind of
> feature compatibility should not get in the way of doing it right.
|
