📅 Original date posted:2022-08-04
📝 Original message:В Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:16:52 -0500
Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud at gmail.com> wrote:
> A descriptor format is simply defining a space of address
> derivation paths. It is not describing in any way what each path is
> intended for - those are conventions outside the scope of this BIP
> IMO. Defining the conventions of derivation path indexes should be a
> separate BIP. Single responsibility principle.
I see, you're right. I misread the BIP proposal text and missed that it
describes 'receive' and 'change' only as 'common usecase', not as
definitive designations for indexes. Considering this, I too see no need
to include such conventions in this BIP.
Dmitry Petukhov [ARCHIVE] /
npub10r…9afdw
2023-06-07 23:12:28
in reply to nevent1q…npp7
Author Public Key
npub10r66s2stvnancx9axwnfc5a34asjkwkgmkq7ztm5hf30x7fa4szsv9afdwPublished at
2023-06-07 23:12:28Event JSON
{
"id": "32efdf8680605d9a16a4b9ffd62870163ca009279850ec8f7f0792c6a9dec4e2",
"pubkey": "78f5a82a0b64fb3c18bd33a69c53b1af612b3ac8dd81e12f74ba62f3793dac05",
"created_at": 1686179548,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"88cd13335423a6a2a9f7a04d39606bedd14519bc86082bd7a5d10d2cce9d9414",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bd0252a356a2ca22b2e817a88c881629579ad010f331c6e87372adc6b86fb0f1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-08-04\n📝 Original message:В Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:16:52 -0500\nBilly Tetrud \u003cbilly.tetrud at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e A descriptor format is simply defining a space of address\n\u003e derivation paths. It is not describing in any way what each path is\n\u003e intended for - those are conventions outside the scope of this BIP\n\u003e IMO. Defining the conventions of derivation path indexes should be a\n\u003e separate BIP. Single responsibility principle.\n\nI see, you're right. I misread the BIP proposal text and missed that it\ndescribes 'receive' and 'change' only as 'common usecase', not as\ndefinitive designations for indexes. Considering this, I too see no need\nto include such conventions in this BIP.",
"sig": "e57535963c627e5263caf0d5663c03a3ebcd295fa72b1ae1697b3c18f573cc9e5eae3b42f53d30488f7bb3391b9ee1affc5b644c98b68364a95a44d8b47214ff"
}