{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-01-10\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:28:33AM +0000, Drak wrote:\n\u003e On 10 January 2014 10:20, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention it in my first write-up but you can\n\u003e \u003e easily make stealth addresses include a second pubkey for the purpose of\n\u003e \u003e the communication that either isn't used in the scriptPubKey at all, or\n\u003e \u003e is part of a n-of-m multisig. (n\u003e=2) Interestingly that also means you\n\u003e \u003e can give a third-party that key and out-source the effort of scanning\n\u003e \u003e the blockchain for you.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e That seems pretty exciting to me. What is the chance of this becoming a BIP?\n\nNeeds a prototype implementation first. The version with no prefix is\nthe simple one and doesn't have any other dependencies; the prefix\nversion is harder because it isn't clear yet what's the best way to\nforce the prefix, or for that matter whether scriptPubKey or\nH(scriptPubKey) indexes will be available.\n\nIt's on my todo list, but as you've probably noticed my todo list is\nrather long. :)\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000028a5c9edabc9697fe96405f667be1d6d558d1db21d49b8857\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 685 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140110/a7ae8027/attachment.sig\u003e"}