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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
