First of, thanks for jb55's wonderful tool for making dumping a c-lighting key easy. However, this is not the point of this post. What i am here to ask is if you look at his example here:
xprv9s21ZrQH143K2W9UqiTJL3qndXzRkEuzAoNwd6VLRu2VDtX6tACVz9q8BzDmJDkB6c6QQnfEWWvLtxB9M68XVpmcJCQodFrr843paWAXGeD root private xpub661MyMwAqRbcEzDwwjzJhBnXBZpv9hdqY2JYRUtwzEZU6grFRhWkXx9c3HJ4EKR1Nvdwf5U3VoekstoKSKjfcJYhRrhMYeEzZzu2h7uZAQX root public xprv9wPk6zRy29x8BLXUHWh8ssqf89xQWtrZeLUgEXyUKSqNdUJhXTJsMtdLCexXxhgxPYUFpQvUhz2WAyhh3uCXSLedbHkvX7jTnX4xQofjdbA extended private combo(xprv9wPk6zRy29x8BLXUHWh8ssqf89xQWtrZeLUgEXyUKSqNdUJhXTJsMtdLCexXxhgxPYUFpQvUhz2WAyhh3uCXSLedbHkvX7jTnX4xQofjdbA/)#u4tc9nwu extended private descriptor xpub6AP6WVxrrXWRPpbwPYE9F1nPgBntvMaR1ZQH2vP5snNMWGdr4zd7ugwp3wukcTUxKu2rLCN9VBQAW3xioATnEWjZvQpx9cybj1jztJHJyp7 extended public combo(xpub6AP6WVxrrXWRPpbwPYE9F1nPgBntvMaR1ZQH2vP5snNMWGdr4zd7ugwp3wukcTUxKu2rLCN9VBQAW3xioATnEWjZvQpx9cybj1jztJHJyp7/)#f64dm6yh extended public descriptor
If you look really carefully, the actual extend private/public keys derived from the root (m/0/0) actually are different from what his example says.
Rather it should be:
xprv9wT3HD7uDSkLA8WbJ7gVh57EJ3mmuVMesRTQSC8utJ3GCkCdp4LrbGFjrtW8vUjXEjL9tuC4uJpc33R6SYLxSx7qvRWgr7zf3pHxJupHzPG xpub6ASPgieo3pJdNcb4Q9DW4D3xr5cGJx5WEeP1EaYXSdaF5YXnMbf794aDiBTMaEXXB5tkQgdjgWCGN7g8BocDF8CnFYaiUdEnzJxznPUi8Vx
If you compare above with jb55's example after base58 decryption, you'll realize that everything is the same except the [parent fingerprint] in the two xpubs and of course the checksums. Despite the differences, they both produce the same addresses.
What could result such a difference in fingerprint happen? Does the author purposely do that? It can not be a mistake because the checksum there is just for preventing one.
Another question: will the difference in the [parent fingerprint] make any issues in the child generation?
