On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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?
>
> 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.
The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_coin_types

It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of
having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to
maintain competing registries.

Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain
ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a
registry in the first place.

> --
> Justus Ranvier
> Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
> http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
> justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
> E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>