{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-08\n📝 Original message:tl;dr;\n\nIt is dangerous to expect that other seed than \"xprv\" does not contain\nbitcoins or that \"xprv\" contains only bitcoins, because technically are\nboth situations possible. It is still safer to do the lookup; the magic\nitself is ambiguous.\n\nMarek\n\nOn Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:40 PM, slush \u003cslush at centrum.cz\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Serialization magic of bip32 seed is in my opinion completely unnecessary.\n\u003e Most of software does not care about it anyway; You can use xprv/xpub pair\n\u003e for main net, testnet, litecoin, dogecoin, whatevercoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e Instead using the same seed (xprv) and then separate the chains *inside*\n\u003e the bip32 path seems more useful to me.\n\u003e\n\u003e Marek\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140408/8f510949/attachment.html\u003e"}