Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-08-04 Thread Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev
В 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-08-04 Thread Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
@Dmitry > various software might start to use extra indexes in a tuple for their own non-standard purposes This will be true regardless of whether the spec allows or doesn't allow tuples of length more than 2. In fact, any other tuple other than <1;2> will be nonstandard. We can't prevent people

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-28 Thread Dmitry Petukhov via bitcoin-dev
The issue with tuples of lenth more than two is that the purpose for indexes beyond 'receive' and 'change' are not established, and therefore various software might start to use extra indexes in a tuple for their own non-standard purposes. This is bound to create incompatibilities where different

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-27 Thread Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
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 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-27 Thread Craig Raw via bitcoin-dev
Thanks Andrew for proposing the BIP, I have used this syntax in Sparrow for some time now. I find a single, compact descriptor for a wallet is important when copying out as a backup, particularly onto durable media. More so when it is a multisig wallet that ideally requires a backup of all the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-27 Thread Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-26 Thread Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
I went with just tuples of two values because that's easier to implement and targets exactly what people were asking for. 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-26 Thread Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
Thanks Andrew for this BIP. We've been already using this for quite some time for Trezor in production. Just one clarification: Should , , ... also work or we only aim to support only tuples of exactly two values? On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 23:51, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev <

[bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Receiving and Change Derivation Paths in a Single Descriptor

2022-07-26 Thread Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
Hi All, I would like to propose a BIP that de-duplicates and simplifies how we represent descriptors for receiving and change addresses. Under the existing BIPs, this requires two descriptors, where the vast majority of the descriptors are the same, except for a single derivation path element.