Reusable Payment Codes for Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 47 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A technique for creating a payment code which can be publicly advertised and associated with a real-life identity without creating the loss of security or privacy inherent to P2PKH address reuse.
3. Name the object that changes: P2PKH, BIP43, BIP44.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 47 at the status the text itself states: Deployed.
• The object that has to change is P2PKH, BIP43, BIP44. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• Which message does Reusable Payment Codes for Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets add, and which old peer must still be answered?
• What does a node do when the short form fails and the full object is required?
• Which names are normative: P2PKH, BIP43, BIP44?

Terms

BIP 47

The public text titled Reusable Payment Codes for Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets.

Deployed

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A node that cannot fetch, filter, or relay the data it is supposed to validate is not a peer of the network the paper describes.

What the design proposes

• A technique for creating a payment code which can be publicly advertised and associated with a real-life identity without creating the loss of security or privacy inherent to P2PKH address reuse.
• This BIP is a particular application of BIP43 and is intended to supplement HD wallets which implement BIP44.
• The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: This BIP is a particular application of BIP43 and is intended to supplement HD wallets which implement BIP44.
• Locate P2PKH, BIP43, BIP44 in BIP 47 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A peer protocol is not a consensus rule. A peer can disconnect. A block is still valid or not on its own.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.
• The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 47 when a pitch says 'Reusable Payment Codes for Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.