From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91301C002D for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6560E60C03 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:10:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 6560E60C03 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simplexum.com header.i=@simplexum.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=YdNrcWc6 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ppte_ja8FBo8 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:10:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org A3E1C60C02 Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (mail.ruggedbytes.com [88.99.30.248]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3E1C60C02 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:10:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ruggedbytes.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ruggedbytes.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6785D2600185; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:10:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simplexum.com; s=mail; t=1659597017; bh=Z18pdJn9CPX4aBFsNnTr29mZ/V5KyfMh0cbnKuLQykE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=YdNrcWc6B/JFy22Ke5sxnUCbslFtDThQu/TTCAlCzfI3hq6PC1zWk+CcCLvMM+iiY BVYp4s3LkguFf34HRx4fKuUo1oAyoATqQ7VdQ56a03BNF0anBl+WjpvwtPgF/QH5yz oECA3bWwu9MhvO7Fa72zlB128RIwr+tUjA+j192Q= Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 09:09:33 +0200 From: Dmitry Petukhov To: Billy Tetrud Message-ID: <20220804090933.228ad190@simplexum.com> In-Reply-To: References: <7bded922-5067-caee-e5be-9f620cfc7404@achow101.com> <20220728114016.2ff78722@simplexum.com> Organization: simplexum.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 10:16:54 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 07:10:21 -0000 =D0=92 Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:16:52 -0500 Billy Tetrud 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.