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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <thomasv1@gmx.de>) id 1WTAgf-0007u2-JG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:49:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.de
designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender)
client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=thomasv1@gmx.de;
helo=mout.gmx.net;
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WTAge-0001ln-24
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:49:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.27] ([84.101.32.222]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002)
with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKIEQ-1WScSB1DaY-001lL5 for
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:49:33 +0100
Message-ID: <53342C6C.2060006@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:49:32 +0100
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CANEZrP2hbBVGqytmXR1rAcVama4ONnR586Se-Ch=dsxOzy2O4w@mail.gmail.com> <53340999.807@gmx.de> <CAJna-HhmFya+3W67qQt0wMhW=B4vJvwdkr-5WnU+KEaKq7uaUA@mail.gmail.com> <5334144A.9040600@gmx.de> <CANEZrP37dO53Jp2rXpPqO3eMd6AWamtXaReq0arMfC=uY2aFUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP21X_Uk+_XWN6y2tgiup07Xd12bZZoFfnheG_Lz-ipbPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP21X_Uk+_XWN6y2tgiup07Xd12bZZoFfnheG_Lz-ipbPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:HdWAM5HnHalxgDZDAerXX/VpK600T0PJuXFa/f1PxgZRA3J+TLG
gAjnMCxLdI9ZXA2i2XaC4QYVwX0FfvCwLEgK0zZ7XloELI+SYKihloxThAS2zfhdZNVJ7QA
lxbbHEz5UmPLSERZTNHkTJCZthGMDPGFHCeHgLsP/2QTFXurAbxQtSYqw6D2htVJVf2lRyR
lMdy8uzjP/dtGEPGzwSLA==
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [212.227.17.20 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-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
(thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
X-Headers-End: 1WTAge-0001ln-24
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure
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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:49:41 -0000
Le 27/03/2014 13:49, Mike Hearn a écrit :
> Ah, BIP32 allows for a range of entropy sizes and it so happens that
> they picked 256 bits instead of 128 bits.
>
> I'd have thought that there is a right answer for this. 2^128 should not
> be brute forceable, and longer sizes have a cost in terms of making the
> seeds harder to write down on paper. So should this be a degree of freedom?
>
Here is what I understand:
2^128 iterations is not brute forcable today, and will not be for the
foreseeable future.
An EC pubkey of length n can be forced in approximately 2^(n/2)
iterations (see http://ecc-challenge.info/) Thus, Bitcoin pubkeys, which
are 256 bits, would require 2^128 iterations. This is why unused
addresses (160 bits hash) are better protected than already used ones.
However, people tend to believe that a public key of size n requires 2^n
iterations. This belief might have been spread by this popular image:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=508880.msg5616146#msg5616146
|
