Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org
	designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=80.91.229.3;
	envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org;
	helo=plane.gmane.org; 
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:05:06 +0100
Message-ID: <map3bi$pkf$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAG86ZOxYh+=rny3sPHeJ0qs6R=5frLXERKmwhVECGHo7tkrz3w@mail.gmail.com>	<CANEZrP3Tuw3mJLSuoOA4iOmg6u9sdh-E5NNm_FgdYs3Mx39znA@mail.gmail.com>	<manr4t$c1a$1@ger.gmane.org>	<54CF74A5.3050304@gk2.sk>	<mao0u5$gbu$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<54CF9016.5070206@gk2.sk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <54CF9016.5070206@gk2.sk>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Export format for xpub
Precedence: list

On 02/02/2015 03:56 PM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:

> To me it seems more important to describe how addresses should be
> discovered (i.e. to scan xpub/0/i and xpub/1/j chains using gap limit G)
> instead of how the xpub was created/obtained (bip32 vs bip44).
> 
> What do you thing about changing ?h=bip32 to something like
> 
> ?t=01&g=20
> 
> - t=01 meaning that chains 0 and 1 should be scanned (feel free to
> change "01" into any other descriptive string)
> - g=20 meaning that gap 20 should be used

I don't think that parameterizing will work, we can't predict future
BIPs. It's the same as for BIP43, in the end we agreed on just putting
the BIP number.