you are pedantic,,
to use segwit keypairs.. you have to use different keypair creation mechanism,
then say the traditional (private key that begins with a 5 and then used ripemd160 in the middle which later results in an address ending 1)
(yes it also has other bits in the middle im just not trying to overcomplicate things by mentioning everything)
the bit inbetween changing the private to public is changing.. for segwit
segwits new high deterministic seeded keys will have the new key making mechanism where sha256 is used instead of ripemd160
in short. a segwit keypair is different to a traditional keypair.
people using traditional keypairs will need to change and fund segwit keypairs
What?! NO. YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! THERE IS NO SUCH CHANGE AS THIS IN SEGWIT!!!
There is no change between getting a public key from the private key. It is still using the standard ECDSA key derivation algorithm. No hashing algorithm is even used for deriving the public key from the private key.
Where are you getting this information? It is absolutely wrong! There is no such specification for such a thing in the BIPs. Do me a favor and reread the BIPs, they do not specify any such change to ECDSA.
What you are also referring to here is the Base58 Check Encoding procedure which does not use the Ripemd160 hash at all. Instead it is a Sha256d and only the first 4 bytes of that are used as a checksum.
The change only change from ripemd160 to sha256 is not really even a change at all. It is for Pay to Witness Script Hash Outputs (an output type that currently does not exist). This "change" is to use the Sha256d hash of the redeemscript instead of the hash160 (and it isn't really a change at all, just a departure from the hash160 we are all so used to).
P.S. I am not being pedantic here. There is absolutely no change to the keypairs. You can in fact create a valid witness address from any currently used public key.
0.12.x has bips in it that are NEEDED to have even made segwit possible.
yes 0.12.x was not a final version of segwit ready code.. but it was a stepping stone to get segwit ready.
The only additional BIPs that 0.12.x included are BIP 9 (which does not need the separate activation anyways), and the BIPs for CSV. CSV is not a prerequisite for segwit.
so include the 0.12.x's into the count.. and you get 4 downloads..
you are being pedantic, megatime
can i give you a hint...
you are being pedantic, at first i thought you were just a snob because i was not buzzwording everything to a satisfactory level of techno-jargon that makes no sense to common man.
i then thought you would realise i am trying to speak layman on purpose. not due to not knowing the techno buzzwords. but because common man prefers to read common words. and what i say is just as valuable to others as it is to just you. so its best to keep things laymen for the communities sake.
but now im thinking you are the one that doesnt understand the concepts, and are just trying to defend blockstream but tweaking things and make arguments.
I am not being pedantic. I am stating that you are incorrect. The two statements that you made in your post (keypairs and prereq bips) are completely incorrect. I completely understand the concepts and I have studied the source code and the BIPs.
separate subject
oh and ages back i seen you and lauda take a fee from a guy who had issues with bitcoin core. i see you didnt fix his issue and instead took his funds got him to reset his wallet and give him back the funds minus a fee you shared with lauda..
called a workaround. not a bug fix
did you do the right thing and report the bug to bitcoin-core. or did you just take the fee and walk away
i hope you reported it. otherwise that makes you useless aswell as pendantic
Care to point me to the thread about that? IIRC the problem was not a bug, but rather user error. He sent the wallet to me and I was able to recover his wallet without issue on my machine. I was going to send his funds directly to his new address from the wallet file he gave me but Lauda swept the funds into his own wallet then forwarded it to the user. Neither of us had any issues with opening the wallet so we left it at just user error rather than a bug in Core.
Now if you are talking about the issues people had with the "reset options" button and custom datadirs, I researched that bug and
wrote a fix for it which has since been merged for a while.