BIPs 174 and 375: fix PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL value #1754
Conversation
Assuming a by one increment in the keytype of the silent payments output fields, the following numeral to 0x09 in the hexadecimal system is 0x0a, not 0x10.
| @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ The new per-output types are defined as follows: | |||
| | 2 | |||
| |- | |||
| | Silent Payment Label | |||
| | <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x10</tt> | |||
| | <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x0a</tt> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Per git blame, this was added in 4a7a7cf.
| @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ required for aggregation. If sorting was done, then the keys must be in the sort | |||
| | [[bip-0375.mediawiki|375]] | |||
| |- | |||
| | Silent Payment Label | |||
| | <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x10</tt> | |||
| | <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x0a</tt> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Per git blame, this was added in commit eb10cdb.
jonatack
changed the title
PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL: "decimal increment" instead of hexadecimal increment
jonatack
added
the
Pending acceptance
jonatack
removed
the
Pending acceptance
|
This is not a typo, this is a change in the specification. While it probably is acceptable, this PR should have waited for sign-off from the author of BIP 174, @achow101. Now that I look at the context, the same would also have been true for #1687, although that at least was just specifying new fields whereas this PR is changing the definition of specified fields. |
|
Indeed, my mistake. |
|
lgtm I think it is okay to merge prs without my ack that update 174 to list new fields defined in another bip or that sync the definitions with their defining bip. Perhaps there should be a different document with the fields list instead of updating 174. |
|
@achow101: Thanks for your review. That’s probably a good way to look at it: if another BIP specifies a new field, that BIP is the authoritative document and the field specification is merely mirrored into BIP 174 for the convenience of the audience. In so far, it would be sufficient to get the sign-off of the author of the new BIP, and I might have been a bit too nitpicky.—I still think that adding a new field may need slightly less attention than changing an existing value, but all good, let’s move on. |
Assuming a by one increment in the keytype of the silent payments output fields, the following numeral to 0x09 in the hexadecimal system is 0x0a, not 0x10.