From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:21:15 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAHabJ+N3Tr5FtStH6Msmj3d8EsvjeTEV6FhSEiizLVs=5ZvCfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201509040006.06430.luke@dashjr.org>
	<55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
In-Reply-To: <55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201509041821.16309.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on
	BIP-43
Precedence: list

On Friday, September 04, 2015 5:48:48 PM Justus Ranvier wrote:
> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non-
> > 
> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
> >     https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
> 
> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to
> that company in particular?

Feel free to create a company-independent repository instead.
Although I don't think SLIPs are intended to be biased toward their company.

> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of
> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit.

This is not Bitcoin's problem... Polluting the BIP repository with N non-
Bitcoin related specifications would be.

Luke