志宇
志宇
Seems like you are using the current stable version of BDK. The new BDK (the work you see in the `master` branch), also previously known as BDK 1.0, is designed...
Done in #1454 and #1473
Hmmm another problem is if we have a wildcard descriptor for one keychain, but a non-wildcard descriptor for another, where the non-wildcard descriptor derives an address that belongs to the...
> This BIP is recent and still with a lot of comments addressing implementation details, e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#discussion_r1313885038. I think Steven was mostly addressing HOW the BIP should be structured, not...
Thanks for this work. I think this will be an important feature to have since we have been running into 429 very often with the `bdk_esplora` crate. A few initial...
To avoid the dependency situation, I'm thinking we can introduce a "middleware" concept to the library. Somehow expose the http header information to the caller and the caller can do...
I like how @kcalvinalvin puts it. Does this tech/project increase the trustlessness of Bitcoin? I think it's very easy to judge. I don't think we should base it in "freedom...
> Can you also add changes from #1341? > Good idea
@LagginTimes can you complete this PR for me? * Rename field `descriptor_ids_to_descriptors` to `descriptors`. * Rename field `descriptor_ids_to_keychains` to `keychains`. * Fix this comment: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/pull/1438#issuecomment-2113478065 to that of the version...
Replaced by #1451