To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<342485b4-586d-c753-94b6-999d5fc14e46@satoshilabs.com>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <57B32D9D.8080908@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:13:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
	Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <342485b4-586d-c753-94b6-999d5fc14e46@satoshilabs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="jtbKrtc7M8PLvHndJptfkuBaWg5Q5GB7T"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--jtbKrtc7M8PLvHndJptfkuBaWg5Q5GB7T
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="jIhHJeK3VEOUaRhl4sDa0cOlvQJoaGVAR"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <57B32D9D.8080908@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
 <342485b4-586d-c753-94b6-999d5fc14e46@satoshilabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <342485b4-586d-c753-94b6-999d5fc14e46@satoshilabs.com>

--jIhHJeK3VEOUaRhl4sDa0cOlvQJoaGVAR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I think it does not make sense to try to get this standardized for
> current Bitcoin transactions. They are just too complex.
>=20
> What might be interesting is to have something similar for Segwit and
> Lightning transactions.
>=20
> * TREZOR performs extended validation of the inputs, when all of
> prev-txs are streamed into the device and validated. Your standard does=

> not tackle this at all and I don't think it's worthy to make this
> standard unnecessarily complicated.

I'm aware of this approach but I don't think this makes sense long term.
We need a better way on the protocol level to validate inputs amounts
(where segwit is a first step towards this).

IMO, not having a standard for hardware wallet interfaces/communication
will long term result in reducing the end user experience.

I think we should collaborate together and work out a standard.

My goal is to add hardware wallet support in Bitcoin-Core where adding
proprietary code (plugin-ish) is something we don't want to do for the
sake of security and compatibility.

As said, the "BIP" is very draft and I'm happy to include the input
streaming as part of it (or you could add it if you want because you
have more experience with it).

</jonas>


--jIhHJeK3VEOUaRhl4sDa0cOlvQJoaGVAR--

--jtbKrtc7M8PLvHndJptfkuBaWg5Q5GB7T
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=BlQ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jtbKrtc7M8PLvHndJptfkuBaWg5Q5GB7T--