@darioAnongba I didn't test publishing yet, I want to figure out first if we want to keep the NPM name "bitcoindevkit" or change it to "bdk_wasm". If we change it to `bdk_wasm" should we change the repo name also?

Since the organization name is now "bitcoindevkit" it seems weird to me have a package called "@bitcoindevkit/bitcoindevkit" rather than "@bitcoindevkit/bdk_wasm".

I'm sure you're aware of it but just for precision. The @bitcoindevkit part of the NPM package name is the namespace, owned by an organization. We can only add that if BDK owns that namespace by creating an NPM account. Very similar to the name of the org on GH, which is bitcoindevkit (so makes sense to keep the same).

If we want this package to be the only one deployed by BDK on NPM, we can simply call it bitcoindevkit and drop the namespace but I wouldn't recommend that.
If we want to mimic as much as possible the structure of BDK, we could have something like:

• @bitcoindevkit/wallet-web
• @bitcoindevkit/wallet-node
• @bitcoindevkit/esplora
• @bitcoindevkit/bitcoind-rpc
• ...

Note: NPM packages do not use underscore _, but use -.

I agree with your suggestion and would like to use the bitcoindevkit namespace and unique names for the artifacts. I'm not a node user so if those names are typical then they look fine to me but would like to map more directly to what we call those crates in rust. How would this be:

• @bitcoindevkit/bdk-wallet-web
• @bitcoindevkit/bdk-wallet-node
• @bitcoindevkit/bdk-esplora
• @bitcoindevkit/bdk-electrum (node only)
• @bitcoindevkit/bdk-bitcoind-rpc (node only)

ACK, I think we can pull that off in the medium term. For now we can start with bdk-wallet-web to mimic what MetaMask had and then we can work on splitting into different NPM packages.
I'll let you know about ownership of the bitcoindevkit namespace on NPM.