diff options
| author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2014-03-27 17:14:05 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-03-27 16:14:11 +0000 |
| commit | 088310a90a50ecc5b458c55a2995d0e58757bb85 (patch) | |
| tree | ed03bd69ac14b89d5a977ebdd9ab0a05c0f6d819 | |
| parent | e8ceb04c794da521edb1f982064c0733546b9c62 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-088310a90a50ecc5b458c55a2995d0e58757bb85.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-088310a90a50ecc5b458c55a2995d0e58757bb85.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
| -rw-r--r-- | 2d/a77a8506b55e290ab72aef023d92fa1be4a520 | 146 |
1 files changed, 146 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2d/a77a8506b55e290ab72aef023d92fa1be4a520 b/2d/a77a8506b55e290ab72aef023d92fa1be4a520 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c50b2532a --- /dev/null +++ b/2d/a77a8506b55e290ab72aef023d92fa1be4a520 @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1WTCwV-0003uW-Sy + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:14:11 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; + helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com; +Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1WTCwU-0003bZ-TQ + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:14:11 +0000 +Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id to1so3667619ieb.28 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.50.4.74 with SMTP id i10mr5375083igi.43.1395936845521; Thu, + 27 Mar 2014 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.50.141.135 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com> + <F2C8C044-EF92-4CCE-9235-28CA7FCE3526@bitsofproof.com> + <CAJHLa0PPAsBLgsy0vgPpUp=UzeR_fWUEzFb5+xtmODEk4MGPVQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJfRnm7V6fgcj=TMfa2ZTYWOKtE5aoUT1xnVtKUSyriB=6cagQ@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:14:05 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjwf1TcK1CGKVKFzYbV-78j8t-pav7=PEgG7Yqi6-yE7A@mail.gmail.com> +From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1WTCwU-0003bZ-TQ +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:14:12 -0000 + +Just chiming in... + +I'm not opposed to a more generic default key tree, but we need to +standardize this soon I believe. There are already existing code bases +that implement BIP32 wallets (and more are popping up...); just using +a separate one will result in lots of incompibilities. + +That said, I'm not convinced about the extra layers. The "cointype" in +my opinion isn't necessary inside the derivation. There is already +support (4 bytes!) for magic bytes in the serialized form. Inside +applications/p2p it should always be known to which chain it applies, +and outside of that you shouldn't transfer raw keys. Maybe seeds need +some marker, but that's a separate case anyway. Mainnet and testnet +have specified magics here already - alts can define what they want +imho. + +A 'reserved' field for future extensions may be useful, but as already +suggested by Mike, I don't believe we can encode how key chains are to +be used inside the derivation structure anyway. The most basic case +(not losing money in a wallet without special structure) can perhaps +be supported with just "the blockchain is your wallet", but I don't +believe this principle can scale to more advanced uses anyway, and you +need metadata in the wallet to deal with it. + +In my view, your wallet just has a bunch of chains, and each chain +gets used for a particular purpose, fixing how the derivation beneath +it works. Either that is as a wallet, as part of a pair of multisig +keys, as a recurring payment receiver, ... or more complex things. +Some of these will require extra layers beneath, but that is +application specific. You would import a chain into your (advanced) +wallet with a particular extpub/extpriv code, and some metadata on how +to use it. Serialization formats for such designated extra uses sounds +better to me than trying to fit it into the derivation structure. + +-- +Pieter + + +On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Allen Piscitello +<allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote: +> Don't most of these coins have a magic number already assigned that is +> unique? (0xD9B4BEF9 for Bitcoin, 0x0709110B for Testnet, FBC0XB6DB for +> Litecoin, etc...). This seems like a good candidate for identifying coins, +> and also supports Testnet cases well. Maybe there are some alts without +> such a magic number that might prevent that? +> +> -Allen +> +> +> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote: +>> +>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> +>> wrote: +>> > A notable suggestion was to instead of building a directory of magic +>> > numbers +>> > (like 0 for Bitcoin, 1 for Litecoin etc) use a hash of the word +>> > "Bitcoin", +>> > "Litecoin", "Dogecoin", so collosion is unlikely and +>> > cetral directory is not needed. +>> +>> +1 good idea +>> +>> -- +>> Jeff Garzik +>> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist +>> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ +>> +>> +>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +>> _______________________________________________ +>> Bitcoin-development mailing list +>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +> +> +> +> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +> +> _______________________________________________ +> Bitcoin-development mailing list +> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +> + + |