1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <swansontec@gmail.com>) id 1Z3Uqq-0006kY-Qt
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:42:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.65 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.65; envelope-from=swansontec@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yh0-f65.google.com;
Received: from mail-yh0-f65.google.com ([209.85.213.65])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Uqp-0006To-Mp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:42:52 +0000
Received: by yhab6 with SMTP id b6so2831595yha.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.200.67 with SMTP id k64mr21172876ywd.125.1434138166244;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.60.134 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAN4RR9gRQCEkns21OTCpWmGOftFXbR-cLWuJX805iPjGATmLyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN4RR9gRQCEkns21OTCpWmGOftFXbR-cLWuJX805iPjGATmLyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:42:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CABjHNoR=jrXixMdsESugw=ZgAVc87gJck48ozLT7XcFr4+Zr_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com>
To: James Poole <james@microtrx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(swansontec[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z3Uqp-0006To-Mp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bip 32 Question
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:42:52 -0000
The `n` is the curve order, as shown here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Secp256k1
This step is necessary to keep you on the curve. The
secp256k1_ec_privkey_tweak_add function from libsecp256k1 handles this
automatically, but if you use OpenSSL or some non-EC math library, you
probably have to do it yourself.
-William
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:22 AM, James Poole <james@microtrx.com> wrote:
> Looking at the BIP32 definition, I hit a line that I would appreciate
> clarification on.
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki
>
> Under the section "Private parent key =E2=86=92 private child key" there =
is a step:
>
> "The returned child key ki is parse256(IL) + kpar (mod n)."
>
> Can someone help me understand what "n" is in the context of this algorit=
hm?
> I very well could be looking right at it, but wanted to double check if I=
am
> missing something.
>
> Thanks,
> James
|
