From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46D7C002D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CE940906 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:44:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 75CE940906 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=satoshilabs.com header.i=@satoshilabs.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=HyZNVXRe X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D5hVoxknLqRG for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:44:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 12D2F408A3 Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D2F408A3 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id a82so23598709ybb.12 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 01:44:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=satoshilabs.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ghS6aLokd/UPU4KkIb8cs4YJYF9EpzxqNeLEhgHR58w=; b=HyZNVXRecz8dI5emHm2636A/jNLIzJXmeQArbXDkB+PPFzTOyHcuZMmvyaOufBslRz 97Da3QKEg3Be3Y2T6rSH9j3mhm7LLlRIwnFEwu/0jvHdr33Zv5LQ8KE2Wx4wqK08cp/v fiE2WcmWyipSSG/D7kyy8zPdMOV9usNHKkvSs76jAhKxNFEdCHISUYhmMAn83X3AaN5a v3ActtXUsjSfgdmQLhxlLxnm8X6gv+QvacDHH2yfF+A0EEJvG5kKIdAunha/S/xyuA53 UsJO4Ahz1r6/wI4MUOLcaY1LAZV2HVGPTpXd7soxlJB+hBtLKl8Q9usr61JJ3bq+2OpG 65rw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ghS6aLokd/UPU4KkIb8cs4YJYF9EpzxqNeLEhgHR58w=; b=ogSk5KTwUxtH/Mv65atuP9O5nNWCf3eJOpoO+7vqZlqfwnE7hnpDCsyYYy6OvIkCxL YACP48fmZWRBWk92kVimGXsEjqdudIOawHBS/yjGXDgp49py9L5oqq8Pgvk+LhSmg+jt aCDxpWNmF+ltXTw4rZK9j5wZHxJJmzgtbeoQtuDqqt1a4GU+btKraP4w8Jm8cUwH8jww /aLozciQoJ6uZV0HNraG0HchBgtRjtE7OQbcA6d46NvAHO76zVg9HX/vL8wI8UZSwHxZ nwLIlRp5JyusiX+H1Qijf5L9tOD9aEq2Aa7YwgeUJbylbJYMxiZCJD54O8wY9qtutcdQ 7TZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/xKEieOu/Va2tnM83c0eboCtFFYJDY8AxH++1Djkdx++BFfOA8 9jro5eogjbEWBqm7dpAQ4GlWnTFeRp/uVYTR8QTcn+aEQ8E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vSmeTS8DTbcJvLYCt3jCH8BhrtK1FpttI7xegCJpQZTnHnZaiUoMRHErt2zMB1LmMxhTLLFEO2YKRNHgvTm5o= X-Received: by 2002:a25:4bc2:0:b0:66f:31d:f5b5 with SMTP id y185-20020a254bc2000000b0066f031df5b5mr16969823yba.328.1658911486894; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 01:44:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Pavol Rusnak Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:44:36 +0200 Message-ID: To: Andrew Chow Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3fada05e4c56d4d" 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: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:44:52 -0000 --000000000000e3fada05e4c56d4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 00:28, Andrew Chow 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 --000000000000e3fada05e4c56d4d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 00:28, Andrew Chow= <achow101-lists@achow101= .com> wrote:
=20 =20
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 wort= hwhile=C2=A0to generalize for any sized tuples. I don't have any existi= ng=C2=A0particular 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.

=
=C2=A0
--
Best Regards / S pozdr= avom,

Pavol "stick" Rusnak
Co-= Founder, SatoshiLabs
--000000000000e3fada05e4c56d4d--