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
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
Return-Path: <hoenicke@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6DD4E35
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 599D5126
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id u206so16800976wme.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=avmw4oaSfgNJi4wYZ6OcQT69vtZ9vArIjdV/bfvB5uk=;
b=GNXBIwvoMYudJNcTosjX/69mCIS+/1hgACFA9rVYPTX+Cjxhz3hsyyTaBrhlIZRLPj
GFB435dpuOPJIeSq3yqgKlY/YaMwNsrEqM6zI+NXdy9Sum3thvrmeqavhgOIKTL3iIWX
nbb8NDXskPtXfTlrgbQtVNxqqkaG3v1bsppO5Qq/7mwMru/qnCoDDqzc6JOFM2GbLc20
XtXttPYTRIl6i/F0S7A1ZbpJ3u5e97FH9d964NBzuhjwPBOztotf/G1L71ayIVB9pGrX
Vnm0AWnFvR7XpWp3Lbi7m1+eidLBDFY+Ix15mCYyPi+iWqofqbwN9C6V1Y6GwElO0yrr
pZQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=avmw4oaSfgNJi4wYZ6OcQT69vtZ9vArIjdV/bfvB5uk=;
b=Q6ICctVkVDKUqOdCkc1g8Eg4fAjKrk0aoQ8+8ue0APKavp17+89qShG6klOOUYA31B
w3wPqqNEZzd2UoieF2x5i+WYmGD+EnfBiBfdEz506qmFgB/m6WRZ9xg9Dkd+H1EkenyK
XWM7PwEI7iqrd3FYWQg7Lytj3irc6S/xzBA2U9uv0hwowo0dDcj+4SHzc1I8DOOoB00J
QImx6zmI7WxVtZGJtFuSKtRmhTpuD9aXBtgS6KEYSzmkNcaTB/jZCtJw5NwMRzApfj7g
RvtkjcQEdmdNoBJLYl5m3PsrGyMsCuaY3kqJyCrDOYrCgh7caTHNoKEMhtesnAIhuKki
ddWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVxW6xYIabdY6BjFehV2ROG75s4UshmHhv7IfZHgYYMCrx6fIap0Vybi9T1UPgxwA==
X-Received: by 10.194.176.129 with SMTP id ci1mr18766919wjc.166.1461316486812;
Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.34.0.144] (nat-0-15.lam.cz. [80.92.242.254])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
r123sm2328389wmg.20.2016.04.22.02.14.44
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <5717AF19.1030102@gmail.com>
<CF7E1C6B-F52F-4658-AB24-553AC3493A86@gmail.com>
From: Jochen Hoenicke <hoenicke@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5719EB7E.5000203@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:14:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CF7E1C6B-F52F-4658-AB24-553AC3493A86@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:14:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to update BIP-32
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:14:49 -0000
Am 21.04.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Eric Lombrozo:
> In practice the probability of this case triggering is on the order of
> 2^-128 or something astronomically tiny. I've been using BIP32 for a few
> years already as have many others...I don't think we've ever had to
> handle this case. Justifiably, many app developers feel like the
> additional complexity of properly handling this case is not worth the
> effort.
>
> Having said that, if the handling of this case is simple to implement
> and easy to isolate in the program flow, I am in favor of doing
> something along the lines of what you propose.
>
Yes, the idea is to handle the problem in the library so that app
developers don't have to handle the case of missing addresses or just
ignore the problem. It also doesn't add much complexity to the library
as the current implementations already test for invalid keys. The
library would then just retry instead of returning an error (that most
app developers would then ignore).
Jochen
|
