1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
|
Return-Path: <thomasv@electrum.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B684258
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 08:10:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net
[217.70.183.197])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0634E1E1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 08:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Originating-IP: 188.102.137.68
Received: from [192.168.2.134]
(dslb-188-102-137-068.188.102.pools.vodafone-ip.de [188.102.137.68])
(Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org)
by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 214E841C080
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:10:18 +0200 (CEST)
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <34198916-cde9-c84d-ca41-9feb8956bd80@electrum.org>
<CAPg+sBgukwdRvfFcgdusrXoo8RiXm8OEL-WvHzjpiD8_HU5KmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
Message-ID: <0dc0336b-d590-ffe9-8689-6ae06e98a39d@electrum.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:10:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgukwdRvfFcgdusrXoo8RiXm8OEL-WvHzjpiD8_HU5KmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] proposal: extend WIF format for segwit
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 08:10:21 -0000
On 17.09.2017 04:29, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>
> This has been a low-priority thing for me, though, and the computation work
> to find a good checksum is significant.
>
Thanks for the info. I guess this means that a bech32 format for private
keys is not going to happen soon. Even if such a format was available,
the issue would remain for segwit-in-p2sh addresses, which use base58.
The ambiguity of the WIF format is currently holding me from releasing a
segwit-capable version of Electrum. I believe it is not acceptable to
use the current WIF format with segwit scripts; that would just create
technological debt, forcing wallets to try all possible scripts. There
is a good reason why WIF adds a 0x01 byte for compressed pubkeys; it
makes it unambiguous.
I see only two options:
1. Disable private keys export in Electrum Segwit wallets, until a
common WIF extension has been agreed on.
2. Define my own WIF extension for Electrum, and go ahead with it.
Defining my own format does make sense for the xpub/xprv format, because
Electrum users need to share master public keys across Electrum wallets.
It makes much less sense for WIF, though, because WIF is mostly used to
import/sweep keys from other wallets.
I would love to know what other wallet developers are going to do,
especially Core. Are you going to export private keys used in segwit
scripts in the current WIF format?
|
