[minor issue] Index button of the previous addresses is not correct?

[aglkm]

Shouldn't we need to correct the index of the previous addresses?

Change the following:

def list_address_type(self, addr_type=0):
...
"%d..%d" % (num_checked - max_addresses, num_checked),

to:

"%d..%d" % (num_checked - max_addresses + 1, num_checked),

[jdlcdl]

Just here to chime in that "Index starts at 0... while Numbers start at 1". I'm sort of making that up... but just for consistency and terminology, "index" sounds computer-ish so that I remember it starts at 0, and "number" sounds human so that we start counting at 1. It's growing on me that the first address (with a derivation path that ends in /0) is "1."

... and I agree with @aglkm above!

[odudex]

Good catch! Wouldn't you like to make a PR?
I think we should keep the numbers, starting at 1, as we also refer to as first, second address etc. and just make the change @aglkm suggested.

[aglkm]

Sure. I will add a PR tomorrow.

[aglkm]

Code changes added here odudex#36