Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-02-02 📝 Original message:On 02/02/2015 03:56 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-02-02
📝 Original message:On 02/02/2015 03:56 PM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> 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
I don't think that parameterizing will work, we can't predict future
BIPs. It's the same as for BIP43, in the end we agreed on just putting
the BIP number.
📝 Original message:On 02/02/2015 03:56 PM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> 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
I don't think that parameterizing will work, we can't predict future
BIPs. It's the same as for BIP43, in the end we agreed on just putting
the BIP number.