Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-20 Thread Jeremy Spilman
which could involve proving something to a third party that has not seen the communication between payer and payee. OK - I think I follow now. So a third-party who does not see any of the communication between the payer and payee only knows the HASH160. Let's say the payee denies receipt

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Melvin Carvalho
On 18 June 2013 05:48, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote: *Goal*: An alternative address format made possible by BIP 32, which allows one to specify a Wallet ID and One-time payment code, instead of the standard one-use Base58-Hash160 addresses. This allows parties with a persistent

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Alan Reiner
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:48:22PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote: _*Goal*_: An alternative address format made possible by BIP 32, which allows one to specify a Wallet ID and One-time payment code, instead of the standard one-use Base58-Hash160 addresses. This allows parties with a persistent

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Timo Hanke
Since you mention to use this in conjunction with the payment protocol, note the following subtlety. Suppose the payer has to paid this address called destination: Standard Address ~ Base58(0x00 || hash160(PubKeyParent * Multiplier[i]) || checksum) Also suppose the payee has spent the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Alan Reiner
On 06/19/2013 10:25 AM, Timo Hanke wrote: Since you mention to use this in conjunction with the payment protocol, note the following subtlety. Suppose the payer has to paid this address called destination: Standard Address ~ Base58(0x00 || hash160(PubKeyParent * Multiplier[i]) ||

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Adam Back
This maybe simpler and trivially compatible with existing type2 public keys (ones that are multiples of a parent public key): send an ECDSA signature of the multiplier, and as we know you can compute (recover) the parent public key from an the ECDSA signature made using it. Adam On Wed, Jun 19,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Alan Reiner
On 06/19/2013 02:36 PM, Adam Back wrote: This maybe simpler and trivially compatible with existing type2 public keys (ones that are multiples of a parent public key): send an ECDSA signature of the multiplier, and as we know you can compute (recover) the parent public key from an the ECDSA

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Jeremy Spilman
If you have two parties who want to form a persistent relationship, by exchanging and verifying public keys beforehand, then I think the canonical way to do this with BIP32 is for the parties to exchange PubKey and *ChainCode*. I don’t understand the use case for handing out individual

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Timo Hanke
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:39:04AM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote: On 06/19/2013 10:25 AM, Timo Hanke wrote: Since you mention to use this in conjunction with the payment protocol, note the following subtlety. Suppose the payer has to paid this address called destination: Standard Address ~

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Alan Reiner
On 06/19/2013 03:29 PM, Jeremy Spilman wrote: If you have two parties who want to form a persistent relationship, by exchanging and verifying public keys beforehand, then I think the canonical way to do this with BIP32 is for the parties to exchange PubKey and *ChainCode*. I don't

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Jeremy Spilman
Hi Alan, “BIP 32 does not prescribe a way to use multiple chains like you described with the convenient type-2 derivation (though we could create a variant that does)” What do you think is missing from BIP32 for this? A wallet creates a child-node using the public / type-2 CDF, hands out

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Alan Reiner
On 06/19/2013 05:58 PM, Jeremy Spilman wrote: Hi Alan, “BIP 32 does not prescribe a way to use multiple chains like you described with the convenient type-2 derivation (though we could create a variant that does)” What do you think is missing from BIP32 for this? A wallet creates a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Jeremy Spilman
BIP 32 already specifies how to use the first three tree levels: M/i/j/k, i~wallet, j~Internal/External, k~address. The first level is actually type-1 derived, and thus we cannot create an arbitrary number of them without pre-computing them from the offline wallet. So it's not free to

[Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-17 Thread Alan Reiner
_*Goal*_: An alternative address format made possible by BIP 32, which allows one to specify a Wallet ID and One-time payment code, instead of the standard one-use Base58-Hash160 addresses. This allows parties with a persistent relationship to be able to prove that payment addresses they