On 03/02/15 10:33, Levin Keller wrote:
> bitcoin-pub-export:xpub[gibberish]?gaplimit=[number]&path=[path in
> derivation tree]&subchains=[numbers]&creationdate=[unixtimestamp]

I cannot come up with an usecase where "path" parameter would be needed.
FWIW childnumber and depth are already expressed in xpub itself.

I like the general idea of "subchains" parameter, but I would like to
further specify it:

a) parameter should contain values described as comma separated
   list of values (such as 0,1,2,3,4)

b) consecutive values can be shortened via dash (0,1,2,3 == 0-3)

c) should we allow non-consecutive values (e.g. 0,1,3,8)?
   I am not sure. If not the "subchains" param can contain just upper
   bound of indexes to scan (e.g. "3")

d) a wallet uses just the first specified chain to generate receiving
   addresses, uses the other chains just to add to the balance

   OR should a wallet be able to generate receiving address for second,
   third, etc. external chain? if yes, we should split "subchains" param
   into "external" and "internal" params both containing a list of
   numbers. this seems like an overkill to me and I am fine with using
   just the first chain as the external one.

> Why not have more descriptive parameters? Saving on data?

Yes. The longer the string, the bigger the QR code.

> I am a big fan of unix timestamps. Would vote for Andreas' format on the
> creation date.

I am not against Unix timestamps, I just said I expected something else
there. Unix timestamps have a lot of advantages. Another option that
might make sense is the block number.

Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak <st...@gk2.sk>

Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to