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
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <watsonbladd@gmail.com>) id 1Tg5ml-00046F-LV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:36:35 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.180; envelope-from=watsonbladd@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ia0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ia0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Tg5mk-0005OJ-PQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:36:35 +0000
Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t4so4512598iag.39
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:36:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.170.66 with SMTP id ak2mr516505igc.38.1354678589515; Tue,
04 Dec 2012 19:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Sender: watsonbladd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.93.231 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:36:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQxQEAtspRQixU7KAqhcXYnev=20-hbDpMCO9nTEKT+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAErK2CgWFarfs1WhGHs2L0b6ZuqCMhu72+dLNj0EZ1vN8=Au=g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQxQEAtspRQixU7KAqhcXYnev=20-hbDpMCO9nTEKT+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:36:29 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uY8Bt3OtYnt-2tIQQHKe6Yi2qC0
Message-ID: <CACsn0cnwyWL2NL9eEboxqgTS-h5MS+LHajKOYpFiCXCBs6pLug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <wbl@uchicago.edu>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(watsonbladd[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Tg5mk-0005OJ-PQ
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] String-based Hierarchical Deterministic
Keys - Alternative to BIP 32
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:36:35 -0000
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Mike Koss <mike@coinlab.com> wrote:
>> I've implemented an alternative to the BIP 32 proposal. I wanted a syst=
em
>> based on a hierarchical string representation (rather than hierarchy of
>> integers as BIP 32 proposes). For example I name keys like this:
>>
>> [hd1.75491111].store.1. 1D7GM5dkUtxvGeWgn7SYtanBuyj1MD1EZy
>> [hd1.75491111].store.2. 1QAqDbzpNKViGSjVe1XmnGbmZtvz5hM7t1
>> [hd1.75491111].store.3. 14XkSN92QLGeorYPpoVbG87DQhowEx3mFn
>> [hd1.75491111].store.4. 1JLcGdod6Wm33rMZuZZUmAEE6osLhM4QMn
>>
>> First draft of proposal:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/4211704
>
> As Pieter pointed out recently=E2=80=94 it's not (realistically) possible=
to
> blindly iterate through strings. This means your proposal loses the
> backup recoverablity property which is part the point of a
> deterministic wallet: If you have a backup prior to a new string name
> being established you must also have a reliable backup of the string
> as well.
I would like to note that BIP32 and this new proposal have a missing
feature: being able to spend
a coin sent to an address generated by this scheme implies being able
to spend any coin generated
by this scheme.
The easiest deterministic wallet construction is simply to use a
stream cipher to generate random
bytes used as the private keys in a wallet. Hierarchical constructions
do not seem to me to add more,
other then distinguishing transactions by sending to unique addresses,
which could be done by other means.
>
> Of course, if you're backing up the strings then you can also backup a
> map equating the hdwallet indexes to your strings, and in the event of
> a catastrophic loss where you are only left with the original ultimate
> root you lose no coins (only metadata) with the BIP32 scheme. If,
> instead, we have your scheme and the backup of strings is incomplete
> then some or all assigned coin may be lost forever.
>
> Your extended hierarchy of multiplers also makes me uncomfortable.
> BIP32 uses a HMAC in its construction to obtain strongly unstructured
> points.
I read BIP32. And while the multipliers at each level are
unstructured, the ones in the next level are products
of the ones before i.e. we have a multiplication tree with random
looking branches.
Note that the order of the basepoint is prime or a small cofactor
times a prime, so this isn't an issue (usually:
the cofactor could be annoying).
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
|
