Timeline for Why is it necessary to have such long addresses?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2018 at 18:14 | comment | added | dEBRUYNE |
Using Hs(rB) excludes the option to let a third-party view incoming transactions to the wallet, as it requires the spend key (as luigi1111 states: "which means scanning requires spending ability"). The third party would thus also be able to spend the funds.
|
|
| Nov 12, 2018 at 17:38 | vote | accept | cookiekid | ||
| Nov 12, 2018 at 17:35 | comment | added | cookiekid | >"2). forego a view key pair entirely, which means scanning requires spending ability (P = Hs(rB)G + B" -- so the only reason for having a 64 byte (two pubkey) address is so that the user has the option of disclosing their incoming transactions? in which case Hs(rB) would be sufficient, it would just mean that all recipients would have to have a list of all utxos themselves in order to check balance and not have the option of delegating scanning to a third party node? | |
| Nov 12, 2018 at 17:27 | history | answered | dEBRUYNE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |