š
Original date posted:2017-09-06
š Original message:On 05.09.2017 21:00, Kabuto Samourai wrote:
>
> The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub
> both list "P2PKH or P2SH." Why not expand the number of version prefixes to
> eliminate the ambiguity?
>
I agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.
However, fixing that now might be difficult.
My "xyz" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy
to deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.
However, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to
add extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently
allowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than
ypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.
In addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess
not all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is
useful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will
never be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a
P2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as
strong.
Thomas Voegtlin [ARCHIVE] /
npub10fā¦7ej47
2023-06-07 18:05:23
in reply to nevent1qā¦3zwx
Author Public Key
npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47Published at
2023-06-07 18:05:23Event JSON
{
"id": "8a9621baabd9906c75c8f4aa6f76e96d3961b812322f8d37ffc8e2ad409ca572",
"pubkey": "7a4ba40070e54012212867182c66beef592603fe7c7284b72ffaafce9da20c05",
"created_at": 1686161123,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a923bf1bc525f39bcc8b2d79f1a19c60437c6f409ee33c9b06b9485d2e732c67",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6a7a19fcfc8e93f912242c7074567e0ac5b8107d6507ccc5359a88db648256d2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4c4c1c93ff1d9a42aa8f01e67686675cefe650879fa3480a4706506f0b4afff2"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2017-09-06\nš Original message:On 05.09.2017 21:00, Kabuto Samourai wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e The Electrum approach is nice but may not go far enough, as xpub and zpub\n\u003e both list \"P2PKH or P2SH.\" Why not expand the number of version prefixes to\n\u003e eliminate the ambiguity?\n\u003e \n\nI agree that this would make sense if we had done it from the start.\nHowever, fixing that now might be difficult.\n\nMy \"xyz\" proposal extends the current format in a way that is very easy\nto deploy, because existing software will require minimal changes.\nHowever, if we eliminate the p2sh ambiguity now, wallets will need to\nadd extra safeguards, in order to prevent scenarios that are currently\nallowed, and they will need to handle legacy xpub/xprv differently than\nypub and zpub. This would take much more time to deploy.\n\nIn addition, consensus might be more difficult to reach on that; I guess\nnot all developers will not agree that removing that ambiguity is\nuseful. Since there is an infinity of possible P2SH scripts, it will\nnever be possible to remove ambiguity from a master key associated to a\nP2SH script. Thus, the benefit of separating P2SH from P2PKH is not as\nstrong.",
"sig": "12919a685882f61abf82d88983456a28dd8c9c2e0f3f9b68eaa4ae5bb183d9bf9075b00b42238604a0b6fd6a65fa67a504a159d81ad2abc445bc3b6b497774fe"
}