📅 Original date posted:2017-09-05
📝 Original message:Generally I like the idea, but maybe we should come up with a
(Bech32-based?) new standard that also includes the key birthdate (aka
"wallet birthdate").
Also I heard Core will mix addresses of all types on the same HD chain.
What prefix would it pick? "*pub"?
On 09/05/2017 12:25 PM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP32 extended public/private keys have version bytes that result in the
> user visible xpub/xprv prefix. The BIP's recommendation is to use
> different version bytes for other networks (such as tpub/tprv for testnet)
>
> I would like to use additional version bytes to indicate the type of
> output script used with the public keys.
>
> I believe the change should be user visible, because users are exposed
> to master public keys. I propose the following prefixes:
>
> ========== =========== ===================================
> Version Prefix Description
> ========== =========== ===================================
> 0x0488ade4 xprv P2PKH or P2SH
> 0x0488b21e xpub P2PKH or P2SH
> 0x049d7878 yprv (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
> 0x049d7cb2 ypub (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH
> 0x04b2430c zprv P2WPKH or P2WSH
> 0x04b24746 zpub P2WPKH or P2WSH
> ========== =========== ===================================
> (source: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html)
>
> I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for
> keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used.
> However, the very existence of version bytes, and the fact that they are
> used to signal whether keys will be used on testnet or mainnet goes
> against that argument.
>
> If we do not signal the script type in the version bytes, I believe
> wallet developers are going to use dirtier tricks, such as the bip32
> child number field in combination with bip43/bip44/bip49.
Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xg…adsv7
2023-06-07 20:05:22
in reply to nevent1q…7cpz
Author Public Key
npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7Published at
2023-06-07 20:05:22Event JSON
{
"id": "b8a9edbb25b949379e87fd8c6abc2a1c15300bc2535105a678131385ec6051d0",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686161122,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a923bf1bc525f39bcc8b2d79f1a19c60437c6f409ee33c9b06b9485d2e732c67",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a8c93ab4fa9e2a33f5610214dcb214298a75a6adcd8907964e0cf4fcaf24cfb1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7631397e469f47f3535567311f5f7c17129e0ff2cb253df015e3d92ddfd92c63"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-09-05\n📝 Original message:Generally I like the idea, but maybe we should come up with a\n(Bech32-based?) new standard that also includes the key birthdate (aka\n\"wallet birthdate\").\n\nAlso I heard Core will mix addresses of all types on the same HD chain.\nWhat prefix would it pick? \"*pub\"?\n\n\nOn 09/05/2017 12:25 PM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e BIP32 extended public/private keys have version bytes that result in the\n\u003e user visible xpub/xprv prefix. The BIP's recommendation is to use\n\u003e different version bytes for other networks (such as tpub/tprv for testnet)\n\u003e \n\u003e I would like to use additional version bytes to indicate the type of\n\u003e output script used with the public keys.\n\u003e \n\u003e I believe the change should be user visible, because users are exposed\n\u003e to master public keys. I propose the following prefixes:\n\u003e \n\u003e ========== =========== ===================================\n\u003e Version Prefix Description\n\u003e ========== =========== ===================================\n\u003e 0x0488ade4 xprv P2PKH or P2SH\n\u003e 0x0488b21e xpub P2PKH or P2SH\n\u003e 0x049d7878 yprv (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH\n\u003e 0x049d7cb2 ypub (P2WPKH or P2WSH) nested in P2SH\n\u003e 0x04b2430c zprv P2WPKH or P2WSH\n\u003e 0x04b24746 zpub P2WPKH or P2WSH\n\u003e ========== =========== ===================================\n\u003e (source: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html)\n\u003e \n\u003e I have heard the argument that xpub/xprv serialization is a format for\n\u003e keys, and that it should not be used to encode how these keys are used.\n\u003e However, the very existence of version bytes, and the fact that they are\n\u003e used to signal whether keys will be used on testnet or mainnet goes\n\u003e against that argument.\n\u003e \n\u003e If we do not signal the script type in the version bytes, I believe\n\u003e wallet developers are going to use dirtier tricks, such as the bip32\n\u003e child number field in combination with bip43/bip44/bip49.",
"sig": "51033d2252a9d3dcbcda651ed26dc44603a42c5abb887d3bffa2c56601d04488619e04c0b955c4ef89a467398e579feb6dff3dd47bc4055798ce6cda84e37ce3"
}