Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0hCAtJnA9YnmVAMjjSPB5W30e=cp8BX2mO--cWEzuSNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:29:59 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F78AEBDF-F314-4245-B453-8D23C709D226@ceptacle.com>
References: <3DA9C79B-D91D-48B2-9469-37BAA037FC50@ceptacle.com>
	<CABsx9T0hCAtJnA9YnmVAMjjSPB5W30e=cp8BX2mO--cWEzuSNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP-13
Precedence: list

Hi Gavin / Luke,

BIP-13 again... I started to implement a bitfield based parsing of the =
version byte using the description I got from Luke, but I then =
discovered that it does not hold:
Network class:
00xxxxxx - main network
01xxxxxx - reserved
10xxxxxx - reserved
11xxxxxx - test network

Network:
xx00xxxx - bitcoin
xx01xxxx - reserved
xx10xxxx - OTHER (next octet)
xx11xxxx - Namecoin

Network specific:
xxxx000y - PubKeyHash
xxxx001y - reserved
xxxx010y - p2sh
xxxx011y - public key (raw)
xxxx100y - signature
xxxx101y - reserved
xxxx110y - private key (raw)
xxxx111y - OTHER (next octet)

However, the definitions en base58.h are:

        PUBKEY_ADDRESS =3D 0, (00000000)
        SCRIPT_ADDRESS =3D 5, (00000101)
        PUBKEY_ADDRESS_TEST =3D 111, (01101111) !!!
        SCRIPT_ADDRESS_TEST =3D 196, (11000100) !!!

[as a side note litecoin is 48 (00110000) and namecoin is 52 (00110100)]

So there is no logic ?? I have searched the mailing list and the forum =
for discussions on this but found it hard to find any. If I overlooked =
something please direct me.

Cheers,

M

PS: I have said so before, but it would *really* be nice if discussions =
/ conclusions / irc-summaries were taking place at one place - e.g. at =
the bitcoin-dev mailing list, not at 5-10 different threads in =
bitcointalk or in bip notes or solely on IRC...


On 20/02/2012, at 18:17, Gavin Andresen wrote:

> RE:
> > base58-encode: [one-byte network ID][20-byte hash][one-byte address =
class][3-byte checksum]
>=20
> How will the code distinguish between the old scheme:
> [one-byte-version][20-byte-hash][4-byte-checksum]
> and the new?
>=20
> 1 in 256 old addresses will have a first-byte-of-checksum that matches =
the new address class; I guess the code would do something like:
>=20
> a) If the 4-byte checksum matches, then assume it is a singlesig =
address (1 in 2^32 multisig addresses will incorrectly match)
> b) If the one-byte-address-class and 3-byte checksum match, then it is =
a valid p2sh
> c) Otherwise, invalid address
>=20
> The 1 in 2^32 multisig addresses also being valid singlesig addresses =
makes me think this scheme won't work-- an attacker willing to generate =
8 billion or so ECDSA keys could generate a single/multisig collision.  =
I'm not sure how that could be leveraged to their advantage, but I bet =
they'd find a way.
>=20
> RE: should it be a BIP:  The BIP process is described in BIP 0001, and =
you're following it perfectly so far:
>=20
> 1) Post a rough draft of the idea here to see if there's any chance =
it'll be adopted
> 2) Assuming a positive response and no major flaws: write up a draft =
BIP
> 3) Post the draft BIP here, where it can be picked apart.
> 4) Assuming no major flaws, ask the BIP editor (Amir) for a BIP number
>=20
> I'd also encourage you to actually implement your idea between steps 3 =
and 4. But in this particular case, I think an attacker being able to =
create singlesig/p2sh address collisions counts as a major flaw.
>=20
> --=20
> --
> Gavin Andresen

Michael Gronager, PhD
Director, Ceptacle
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 45 14 01
E-mail: gronager@ceptacle.com
Web: http://www.ceptacle.com/