-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Can --batch mode return both address and private key pair? #19
Comments
Your first question is possible with
Will output in the following format:
This does not currently work for |
Hi Thanks for your reply. Yes I saw the --output-type all option, which returns a lot of informations. From my point of view, the two main components of a "bitcoin identity" are the address and the private key (WIF). This is what is used by end users. The workaround I found to the --batch operation is to run 2 bitcoin-tool commands, one for returning addresses, the other for returning private keys (both from same hex numbers file), and then merge/join the two files. So if bitcoin-tool could return both values on the same line, that would be perfect. I agree with you with returning the selected items on the same row. It would make it a lot easier to handle. I think that CSV style is the most common and easy to use format/design. For example [Address;PrivateKey]. So for your example, each line could return something like this (if semicolon is used as delimiter): The idea is to just keep it simple. |
Hi
I am currently testing bitcoin-tool for a project.
I have 2 questions :
I would like to know if the current version of bitcoin-tool permits to return both address and private key pairs ? I have tried to use it but from my trial, it seems that the batch mode can only return one output-type. Which is a bit annoying since only having an address without the associated private key is not very useful in terms of bitcoin usage.
How hard would it be to modify the code in order to permit to --batch mode to return both address and private key pairs?
Thanks
Xavier
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: