📅 Original date posted:2013-07-22
📝 Original message:On 22 July 2013 16:44, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I should have brought up this suggestion before, as there seems to be
> relevant other work.
>
> I'd like to propose encoding keys data (whatever type) with a birth
> timestamp as:
> * <serialized key>@<unix timestamp in decimal>
>
> The reason for not incorporating this inside the key serialization (for
> example BIP32), is because
> birth timestamps are more generally a property of an address, rather than
> the key it is derived from.
> For one, it is useful for non-extended standard serialized private keys,
> but for P2SH addresses,
> the "private key" is really the actual scriptPubKey, but birth data is
> equally useful for this.
>
> Reason for choosing the '@' character: it's not present in the base58,
> hex, or base64 encodings that
> are typically used for key/script data.
>
> One downside is that this means no checksum-protection for the timestamp,
> but the advantage is
> increased genericity. It's also longer than using a binary encoding, but
> this is an optional
> part anyway, and I think "human typing" is already fairly hard anyway.
>
Is there a BIP for this?
@ is normally used in conjunction with things other than a time stamp ...
You may want to look at RFC 4151
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4151.txt
They had an idea on adding time stamps to identifiers.
First impression is that the sacrifice in opacity does not seem to justify
the utility.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130722/1a9c17e0/attachment.html>;
Melvin Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uv…saxrt
2023-06-07 15:04:54
in reply to nevent1q…mqwu
Author Public Key
npub1uvtfvcegcn9kds68r8he57emc480vqtx8t22kpsctxgjxae44gvsksaxrtSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:04:54Event JSON
{
"id": "bd19f4c480ff2a98a31d755a0826018beab117926a980a3db73082d9a0f5ebe7",
"pubkey": "e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19",
"created_at": 1686150294,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b27736b6b6a9e4a4f64e737bccac1ea1d52d8b9a0a4f8f0910e04fb5f30c97bc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6f7b0be8503cde11fb9e67c0fcc43723cab4dad29787cb88db9079da7e52376c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-07-22\n📝 Original message:On 22 July 2013 16:44, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hello,\n\u003e\n\u003e I should have brought up this suggestion before, as there seems to be\n\u003e relevant other work.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'd like to propose encoding keys data (whatever type) with a birth\n\u003e timestamp as:\n\u003e * \u003cserialized key\u003e@\u003cunix timestamp in decimal\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e The reason for not incorporating this inside the key serialization (for\n\u003e example BIP32), is because\n\u003e birth timestamps are more generally a property of an address, rather than\n\u003e the key it is derived from.\n\u003e For one, it is useful for non-extended standard serialized private keys,\n\u003e but for P2SH addresses,\n\u003e the \"private key\" is really the actual scriptPubKey, but birth data is\n\u003e equally useful for this.\n\u003e\n\u003e Reason for choosing the '@' character: it's not present in the base58,\n\u003e hex, or base64 encodings that\n\u003e are typically used for key/script data.\n\u003e\n\u003e One downside is that this means no checksum-protection for the timestamp,\n\u003e but the advantage is\n\u003e increased genericity. It's also longer than using a binary encoding, but\n\u003e this is an optional\n\u003e part anyway, and I think \"human typing\" is already fairly hard anyway.\n\u003e\n\nIs there a BIP for this?\n\n@ is normally used in conjunction with things other than a time stamp ...\n\nYou may want to look at RFC 4151\n\nhttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4151.txt\n\nThey had an idea on adding time stamps to identifiers.\n\nFirst impression is that the sacrifice in opacity does not seem to justify\nthe utility.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics\n\u003e Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics\n\u003e Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.\n\u003e Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130722/1a9c17e0/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7feae26148253fe3e476386371d8647c320bcf0db35f543927d9c50dba82d036c02338472fc383d42cadbe140fb24d3aa4c27ce0c24e21a51d23d40809a5d088"
}