Pavol Rusnak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-02-02 📝 Original message:On 02/02/15 15:17, Andreas ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-02-02
📝 Original message:On 02/02/15 15:17, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> Yes, except that BIP32-hierarchy and BIP44 differ in some requirements
> (e.g. gap limit).
Right.
To me it seems more important to describe how addresses should be
discovered (i.e. to scan xpub/0/i and xpub/1/j chains using gap limit G)
instead of how the xpub was created/obtained (bip32 vs bip44).
What do you thing about changing ?h=bip32 to something like
?t=01&g=20
- t=01 meaning that chains 0 and 1 should be scanned (feel free to
change "01" into any other descriptive string)
- g=20 meaning that gap 20 should be used
> Those strings are not meant to be read by humans. YYYYMMDD is more
> complicated than necessary, given that Bitcoin deals with seconds since
> epoch everywhere.
OK :-)
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol Rusnak <stick at gk2.sk>
📝 Original message:On 02/02/15 15:17, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> Yes, except that BIP32-hierarchy and BIP44 differ in some requirements
> (e.g. gap limit).
Right.
To me it seems more important to describe how addresses should be
discovered (i.e. to scan xpub/0/i and xpub/1/j chains using gap limit G)
instead of how the xpub was created/obtained (bip32 vs bip44).
What do you thing about changing ?h=bip32 to something like
?t=01&g=20
- t=01 meaning that chains 0 and 1 should be scanned (feel free to
change "01" into any other descriptive string)
- g=20 meaning that gap 20 should be used
> Those strings are not meant to be read by humans. YYYYMMDD is more
> complicated than necessary, given that Bitcoin deals with seconds since
> epoch everywhere.
OK :-)
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol Rusnak <stick at gk2.sk>