LibraryScaling2023Design paperCorpus record
Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets
BIP 388. Salvatore Ingala.
BIP 388, Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets. Software wallets and hardware signing devices typically partition funds into separate "accounts".
Status in the source: Complete. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.
Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: Software wallets and hardware signing devices typically partition funds into separate "accounts".
- Evidence
- Primary paper
- Re-measured
- No
- Assumptions
- 3
- Records linked
- 4
Code
Source, repository, and what is actually hosted
- BIP 388https://bips.dev/388
- The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
- Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
- Add to a reading list
01 Claim ledger
What the paper is allowed to say
Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.
Claim 01 · Paper model
The rule
Software wallets and hardware signing devices typically partition funds into separate "accounts".
Claim 02 · Paper model
What was already failing
An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.
Claim 03 · Paper model
What the number does not mean
The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.
Claim 04 · Paper model
What a builder should be able to point at
An implementation either constrains Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets or it is a different design.
02 Three cuts
Observation, model, falsifier
A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.
01 The rule
02 What was already failing
Observation
What the study says
An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.
03 What the number does not mean
Observation
What the study says
The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.
Model
What has to hold
You are implementing BIP 388 at the status the text itself states: Complete.
04 What a builder should be able to point at
03 Sequence
One action, as an operating tape
- 01Open BIP 388 and read the status line before the examples.
- 02Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: Software wallets and hardware signing devices typically partition funds into separate "accounts".
- 03Name the object that changes: Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets.
- 04Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.
04 Load-bearing
The argument, and where a pitch drops it
What the text is allowed to settle
The cut
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 388 can settle the shape of Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
What this page will not pretend
The cut
There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A gas or opcode change is not a throughput benchmark. It is a relative price and a validity rule.
05 Register
What has to be true
Model · Not re-measured
You are implementing BIP 388 at the status the text itself states: Complete.
Model · Not re-measured
The object that has to change is Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
Model · Not re-measured
Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
06 Divergence
What happened after the paper
The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.
A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.
07 Pre-mortem
What to check before you use the idea
- 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.
08 Anatomy
The paper, in the order a builder needs
The problem it names
An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.
What the design proposes
- Software wallets and hardware signing devices typically partition funds into separate "accounts".
- When signing or visualizing a transaction, aggregate flows of funds of all accounts affected by the transaction may (and should) be displayed to the user.
- Wallet policies build on top of output script descriptors to represent such accounts in a compact, reviewable way.
How the mechanism is specified
- Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: When signing or visualizing a transaction, aggregate flows of funds of all accounts affected by the transaction may (and should) be displayed to the user.
- Locate Wallet Policies for Descriptor Wallets in BIP 388 and apply it to one transaction or call.
- Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.
What this page does not treat as proven
- A gas or opcode change is not a throughput benchmark. It is a relative price and a validity rule.
- Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
- The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.
09 Lexicon
Terms, opened into the record
- Complete
- The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.
10 Repository
Every linked record on this page
Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.
This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.
Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.