From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UpIa9-0008Kw-6R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:37:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UpIa7-00087Z-J7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:37:53 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id aq17so13428387iec.36 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.73.37 with SMTP id i5mr10083505igv.88.1371649066299; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [76.111.96.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r20sm6159690ign.8.2013.06.19.06.37.45 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51C1B420.6010304@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:37:36 -0400 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Melvin Carvalho References: <51BFD886.8000701@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060308050308020604050907" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UpIa7-00087Z-J7 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional "wallet-linkable" address format - Payment Protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:37:53 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060308050308020604050907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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). --------------060308050308020604050907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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).  --------------060308050308020604050907--