📅 Original date posted:2022-07-27
📝 Original message:I've updated the BIP text to allow arbitrary length tuples.
On 07/27/2022 04:44 AM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 00:28, Andrew Chow <achow101-lists at achow101.com> wrote:
>
>> However I don't see why this couldn't generalize to any sized tuples. As long as the tuples are all the same length, and the limit is one tuple per key expression, then we don't get any combinatorial blowup issues.
>
> I think it's worthwhile to generalize for any sized tuples. I don't have any existing particular use case in mind, because BIP-44, BIP-84, etc. are fine with just using <0;1>, but there might be some upcoming standards in the future that will want to introduce more sub-paths.
>
> --
>
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol "stick" Rusnak
> Co-Founder, SatoshiLabs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220727/d7691026/attachment.html>;
Andrew Chow [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fg…xak44
2023-06-07 23:12:17
in reply to nevent1q…jgcl
Author Public Key
npub1fgnnmg7f4wzup9hct8nv5pnd9l07wcjqdjku9ax432n4g69v4rgq7xak44Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 23:12:17Event JSON
{
"id": "b89b988849bb248910e867b3c26065b5caeb54305959c1dd7b045de8880d4300",
"pubkey": "4a273da3c9ab85c096f859e6ca066d2fdfe762406cadc2f4d58aa75468aca8d0",
"created_at": 1686179537,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4bbeff45fe327dd8a25e73531abd515e2a94cabab69a434340c764e33537b7b4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"58a5feec4bef405dce11a9c03ceda31ba9484a907a2608547df2a2c4861f85a8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"03111b3dcac4508bd5dcda221b0b2b4e419292ae403c6a77a615481933a12b2d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-07-27\n📝 Original message:I've updated the BIP text to allow arbitrary length tuples.\n\nOn 07/27/2022 04:44 AM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 00:28, Andrew Chow \u003cachow101-lists at achow101.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e However I don't see why this couldn't generalize to any sized tuples. As long as the tuples are all the same length, and the limit is one tuple per key expression, then we don't get any combinatorial blowup issues.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think it's worthwhile to generalize for any sized tuples. I don't have any existing particular use case in mind, because BIP-44, BIP-84, etc. are fine with just using \u003c0;1\u003e, but there might be some upcoming standards in the future that will want to introduce more sub-paths.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e\n\u003e Best Regards / S pozdravom,\n\u003e\n\u003e Pavol \"stick\" Rusnak\n\u003e Co-Founder, SatoshiLabs\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220727/d7691026/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d23a5bd3e4896ecb7ef26efa89c3bbcc3c83072507046f19ab9a18f3121d5a733304d0779c4050fca83667a2542d7712da7d6e12e666fa3b9790507a3b0df5d9"
}