BIPs 174 and 375: fix PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL value #1754

1. 
   nymius commented at 3:30 pm on January 31, 2025: contributor

   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.
2. fix(BIP174,BIP375): typo in PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL

   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.

   a9729b28d4
3. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jan 31, 2025
4. in bip-0375.mediawiki:131 in a9729b28d4

   127@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ The new per-output types are defined as follows:
   128 | 2
   129 |-
   130 | Silent Payment Label
   131-| <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x10</tt>
   132+| <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x0a</tt>
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 6:50 pm on January 31, 2025:

   Per git blame, this was added in 4a7a7cf7.
5. in bip-0174.mediawiki:718 in a9729b28d4

   714@@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ required for aggregation. If sorting was done, then the keys must be in the sort
   715 | [[bip-0375.mediawiki|375]]
   716 |-
   717 | Silent Payment Label
   718-| <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x10</tt>
   719+| <tt>PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL = 0x0a</tt>
   

   ---

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 6:50 pm on January 31, 2025:

   Per git blame, this was added in commit eb10cdb4.
6. 
   jonatack commented at 6:52 pm on January 31, 2025: member

   Pinging @andrewtoth for feedback.
7. jonatack renamed this:
   Typo in `PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL`: "decimal increment" instead of hexadecimal increment
   BIPs 174 and 375: fix PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_LABEL value
   on Jan 31, 2025
8. jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Jan 31, 2025
9. andrewtoth approved
10. 
    andrewtoth commented at 6:17 pm on February 6, 2025: contributor

    LGMT ACK a9729b28d4c7881955b3a3c3f9e254d8847f4c48

    Thanks for catching this!

11. jonatack removed the label Pending acceptance on Feb 6, 2025
12. jonatack merged this on Feb 6, 2025
13. jonatack closed this on Feb 6, 2025

    ---

14. 
    jonatack commented at 6:29 pm on February 6, 2025: member

    ACK a9729b2
15. 
    murchandamus commented at 7:16 pm on February 6, 2025: contributor

    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.

16. 
    jonatack commented at 8:06 pm on February 6, 2025: member

    Indeed, my mistake.
17. 
    achow101 commented at 3:18 pm on February 7, 2025: member

    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.

18. 
    murchandamus commented at 3:34 pm on February 7, 2025: contributor

    @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.

Contributors
nymius jonatack andrewtoth murchandamus achow101

Labels
Proposed BIP modification