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 <etotheipi@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	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 <multiple recipients>
	(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 <etotheipi@gmail.com>
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 <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
References: <51BFD886.8000701@gmail.com>
	<CAKaEYhJh4ArCqxf+wFobNzMbyd8TDPWEDw_n7_mm78d_41oFbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJh4ArCqxf+wFobNzMbyd8TDPWEDw_n7_mm78d_41oFbA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    On 06/19/2013 08:19 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAKaEYhJh4ArCqxf+wFobNzMbyd8TDPWEDw_n7_mm78d_41oFbA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr"><br>
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">Generally in favour of hierarchical
            deterministic wallets.<br>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Will this new style of address make it into the block
              chain?&nbsp; I'd be less keen on that.<br>
              <br>
            </div>
            <div>I'm finding BIP0032 quite hard to read right now, but
              perhaps that's because I'm less familiar with the material
              than some.&nbsp; However, there's little things like it never
              actually defines a deterministic wallet in the Abstract.&nbsp;
              But, I'll keep trying to understand and see if I can use
              the test vectors.<br>
            </div>
            <div>&nbsp;</div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="HOEnZb"><font
                    color="#888888"> </font></span><br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    This has nothing to do with the blockchain.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The same
    thing ends up in the blockchain, either way.<br>
    <br>
    Either:<br>
    (1) I give you a Hash160 address which shows up in the blockchain<br>
    or<br>
    (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)<br>
    <br>
    I can always give you version #1, and that's what everyone does
    right now.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp;
  </body>
</html>

--------------060308050308020604050907--