📅 Original date posted:2013-06-19
📝 Original message:On 06/19/2013 08:19 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> Generally in favour of hierarchical deterministic wallets.
>
> Will this new style of address make it into the block chain? I'd be
> less keen on that.
>
> I'm finding BIP0032 quite hard to read right now, but perhaps that's
> because I'm less familiar with the material than some. However,
> there's little things like it never actually defines a deterministic
> wallet in the Abstract. But, I'll keep trying to understand and see
> if I can use the test vectors.
>
>
>
This has nothing to do with the blockchain. This is simply an alternate
way to encode an address, in the event that you want to prove that this
address is linked to another address. The same thing ends up in the
blockchain, either way.
Either:
(1) I give you a Hash160 address which shows up in the blockchain
or
(2) I give you {PubKey, Mult}, then you compute PubKey*Mult then hash it
to get the same Hash160 I would've given you in (1)
I can always give you version #1, and that's what everyone does right
now. Version #2 is essentially the same, but used if you want to give
the other party extra information (such as the root public key, so that
the next time you send a version#2 address they can see they are from
the same root public key).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130619/1038df24/attachment.html>;
Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sm…mnq7h
2023-06-07 15:03:29
in reply to nevent1q…tfy4
Author Public Key
npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hPublished at
2023-06-07 15:03:29Event JSON
{
"id": "0986e3210c0b1d4c46b13fecf04dc9213b1865b41128be694dc3f921b1ba7a11",
"pubkey": "86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec",
"created_at": 1686150209,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"60c63b2d935c09c2d6c618c7776de45a3225391d6d5c2bbb728d2b54da18fc56",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"147d2cb6327c14a328ac439b7957afa9bb677c099ac4dccd5420e240480972c9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-06-19\n📝 Original message:On 06/19/2013 08:19 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Generally in favour of hierarchical deterministic wallets.\n\u003e\n\u003e Will this new style of address make it into the block chain? I'd be\n\u003e less keen on that.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm finding BIP0032 quite hard to read right now, but perhaps that's\n\u003e because I'm less familiar with the material than some. However,\n\u003e there's little things like it never actually defines a deterministic\n\u003e wallet in the Abstract. But, I'll keep trying to understand and see\n\u003e if I can use the test vectors.\n\u003e \n\u003e\n\u003e\n\nThis has nothing to do with the blockchain. This is simply an alternate\nway to encode an address, in the event that you want to prove that this\naddress is linked to another address. The same thing ends up in the\nblockchain, either way.\n\nEither:\n(1) I give you a Hash160 address which shows up in the blockchain\nor\n(2) I give you {PubKey, Mult}, then you compute PubKey*Mult then hash it\nto get the same Hash160 I would've given you in (1)\n\nI can always give you version #1, and that's what everyone does right\nnow. Version #2 is essentially the same, but used if you want to give\nthe other party extra information (such as the root public key, so that\nthe next time you send a version#2 address they can see they are from\nthe same root public key). \n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130619/1038df24/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "4c223150517d40c7a01fc113fab83b959cfa4e53f043072ee0bdb6c69cacc36604d4901c1c9eda77cbfac74490d97e9c6bb9d2d686c6e0415bccced72718466d"
}