Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <stick@gk2.sk>) id 1Xggbb-0002nf-CP
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:04:35 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XggbY-0007PO-30
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:04:35 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id bs8so2092857wib.3
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=l7aC6zj0e4ykZv9Q7OTlihMymoaHa6uZ4JRS2RjGWl0=;
	b=hLy8jLPCBozZzsKQZPi7fxIOZvetCVGyWuhfmTRwK2Npd9JI6AYVa/hoPb8UczGAUq
	+TRlLC0zZuyRTEiOXEMBz/0bw7ecX10wOzR+jRrFk0U7V0J7r2okIZIAUFVLhx1hGJet
	eLhtOdwOLbeedjtjA2k+Z+jh5Wbqyo0cMfb8BW6H1UcKmbAt8SZ2rzN86G1ZBx3WMY86
	456Nv9LpmR811Ih6DJN6kvB6UizhtYwh3RopNClSz2mNGm5upVJLKuSI/GWvtyKQsDJ3
	G5EINRQVMzQV8yvW1mN28xAHoIxS91HtgLVsIItDZsaMMbP/R7lOmCC2uPKuVCtke0GG
	iSIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoRS9lTVS7oFuGY+toMVL+K7xS8WGn1PvDX19hIQRGmnySc66AjtoSdrq3SQ5THhtY0dhi
X-Received: by 10.194.184.12 with SMTP id eq12mr47424041wjc.100.1413924982188; 
	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tetra.site ([185.68.216.82])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l10sm101590wif.20.2014.10.21.13.56.19
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5446C872.7050302@gk2.sk>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:56:18 +0200
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mem Wallet <memwallet.info@gmail.com>, 
	bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAKzHBKkHpod+7T0uCtESVNFmgFAbGF8-AFJxKmfUwA-pkt_BrA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKzHBKkHpod+7T0uCtESVNFmgFAbGF8-AFJxKmfUwA-pkt_BrA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1XggbY-0007PO-30
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] cryptographic review requested
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: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:04:35 -0000

On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, Mem Wallet wrote:
> communication. To address gmaxwell's criticism, I'd like to also
> follow up with a proposed change to BIP44, such that a structured
> wallet would also include a series of identity keys, both addresses
> which will be used for signing, and public keys which would be used
> as destinations for encrypted messages.

I don't know what criticism it was, but I feel that another BIP than
BIP44 should be created to describe which HD paths should be used for ECIES.

> If anyone is familiar with ECIES and would be interested, there is a
> working implementation at http://memwallet.info/btcmssgs.html,
> which also includes this whitepaper:

That looks great! I already implemented Electrum's way of ECIES into
TREZOR firmware, but yours version seems much more complete, so I am
inclined to throw it away and use your implementation.

Have you thought about pushing this as a new BIP (different one than I
mention above)? I think it's important to have it reviewed and
standardized ASAP.

-- 
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>