<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-01-10&#xA;📝 Original message:On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:28:33AM +0000, Drak wrote:&#xA;&gt; On 10 January 2014 10:20, Peter Todd &lt;pete at petertodd.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &gt; Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention it in my first write-up but you can&#xA;&gt; &gt; easily make stealth addresses include a second pubkey for the purpose of&#xA;&gt; &gt; the communication that either isn&#39;t used in the scriptPubKey at all, or&#xA;&gt; &gt; is part of a n-of-m multisig. (n&gt;=2) Interestingly that also means you&#xA;&gt; &gt; can give a third-party that key and out-source the effort of scanning&#xA;&gt; &gt; the blockchain for you.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; That seems pretty exciting to me. What is the chance of this becoming a BIP?&#xA;&#xA;Needs a prototype implementation first. The version with no prefix is&#xA;the simple one and doesn&#39;t have any other dependencies; the prefix&#xA;version is harder because it isn&#39;t clear yet what&#39;s the best way to&#xA;force the prefix, or for that matter whether scriptPubKey or&#xA;H(scriptPubKey) indexes will be available.&#xA;&#xA;It&#39;s on my todo list, but as you&#39;ve probably noticed my todo list is&#xA;rather long. :)&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;&#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@petertodd.org&#xA;00000000000000028a5c9edabc9697fe96405f667be1d6d558d1db21d49b8857&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;A non-text attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;Name: signature.asc&#xA;Type: application/pgp-signature&#xA;Size: 685 bytes&#xA;Desc: Digital signature&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140110/a7ae8027/attachment.sig&gt;</html></oembed>