This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 21, 2026. It is now read-only.
Open
Conversation
arminsabouri
force-pushed
the
feature/xpubs
branch
from
9103caf to
d63f92d
Compare
satsie
reviewed
May 10, 2023
Collaborator
satsie
left a comment
satsie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you been able to test this? I'd like to give it a go before merging. Biggest question I have is around a comment I left regarding the private_key vs nostr_private_key variable.
| logging.info("Generating and posting the public key...") | ||
| handle_create_xpub(wallet, relay_manager, nostr_private_key) | ||
|
|
||
| handle_create_xpub(wallet, relay_manager, private_key) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| handle_create_xpub(wallet, relay_manager, private_key) | |
| handle_create_xpub(wallet, relay_manager, nostr_private_key) |
I think this should be kept nostr_private_key? I renamed it as part of this cleanup a little over a week ago #18
| elif user_input.lower() == SignerCommands.GENERATE_ADDRESS.value: | ||
| # TODO bug: you cannot sign or spend with out getting an address first | ||
| logging.info("Generating a new address...") | ||
| # TODO right now you have to manage your own address indecies |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| # TODO right now you have to manage your own address indecies | |
| # TODO right now you have to manage your own address indexes |
| logging.info(f"Generating a new address at index {index} ...") | ||
| address_payload = handle_get_address( | ||
| wallet, 0, relay_manager, nostr_private_key) | ||
| wallet, index, relay_manager, private_key) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| wallet, index, relay_manager, private_key) | |
| wallet, index, relay_manager, nostr_private_key) |
|
|
||
| # pk = self.public_key.get_bytes().hex() | ||
| # private_key = self.private_key | ||
| tweaked_key = private_key * self.cmap[pk] |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a thought - is it okay to multiply values like this? I would think for Schnorr it's fine since it has those nice linear properties that ECDSA doesn't, but it could be worth double checking if this is where the negation bug is coming from.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.