As the Testnet seems to be willing to attract people that are not professionals but also not completely incapable about tech I would like to ask a few stupid questions about the Jormungandr introduction.
I thought that the sum of UTXO someone holds is basically the amount of Stake someone has.
But got a lot of confusion reading the introduction.
Account use account model (capable for staking), while
single addresses use UTXO model (not capable/designed for staking).
Also, If you have an UTXO wallet (Yoroi or Daedalus), you do not have a Wallet address (but a keypair of which none of the both keys should be exposed to public), but a bunch of UTXOs, which are addresses (derived from the Wallet’s keys) individually. The Wallet balance is calculated by summing the UTXOs that are belong to that wallet.
Account, has a balance instead of UTXOs, and its public key (the serialised/encoded public key), can be exposed to public.
So, groupping a single addresses to an account is just for:
make the single addresses be staking capable by assigning one or more UTXOs to a single account address while not exposing the UTXOs’ wallet public key to the public (for security and/or audit reason).
To be clear. Currently, there are two era based addresses (mainnet ones in the example below):
Byron (current a.k.a legacy addresses)
Ddz..... (Daedalus), and
Ae2... (BIP44 HD Wallet addresses, Yoroi as an example)
Shelley (new bech32 format addresses):
ca1....., this type of addresses have 4 kinds at the moment (all of the 4 types will have the ca HRP, i.e. human readable part, prefix).
Single (UTXO style, not capable for staking)
Account (Account style, capable for staking)
Group ( is a group of a Single and an Account address, for staking)
Multisig (not yet implemented)
And Byron legacy addresses, see 1., not capable for staking.
It does not go, it’s just an association, for aggregating the UTXO style addresses to an Account address. This was the design decision in the incentive paper, for eliminating the number of UTXOs (that would grow in linear fashion in staking) from the chain and makes the automated reward paying easier (means no dust utxos generated for smalll rewards). The underlying arch is a bit more complicated, but this enough to broadly understand the group addresses.
No, this only means that the UTXO2 became a stake, but it does not mean that’s delegated to a pool.
You not need to delegate your stake to a pool to earn rewards, and to secure the network.
And you will delegate only the Account address’ staking key to a pool.
No, this is an example of the Byron era’s Daedalus address.
No, there is a reverse relation, means by that:
Every UTXO is an address, but
not every address is an UTXO.
UTXO, simple means, an address that has not been spent.
That’s great thanks!
Most of my confusion was trying to associate Jormungandr Instruction to the Byron era, I didn’t know about the new structure coming.
One last question I left is:
Who does the association between UTXO addresses and Account addresses? How does it happen?
For instance I am in Daedalus and I have all this UTXOs in my wallet, is it me that will associate them to an account or is something that will happen in the backend?: whenever I delegate to a pool, Daedalus will look to all my UTXOs and associate them to an account (my stake account) which will then be delegated to a pool?
Is the incentive paper that I should read to get all of this knowledge?
I do not know, as the new Wallets are not available atm. But you do not see the UTXOs, just the balance of the wallet (and the transactions if you want to).
I am assuming that the delegation would simply mean click to a button and the wallet will assign your UTXOs to an account address, or your you need to create a “account” wallet and transfer funds to it,
or do it differently by using some other methods that will do all the stuffs automagically.
But, I do not know how would it work.
This is the easy consumption version of the paper.