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
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <g.rowe.froot@gmail.com>) id 1WNp1f-0001Hg-Oc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.174; envelope-from=g.rowe.froot@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vc0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WNp1c-0005lJ-Fh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:15 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ld13so5325673vcb.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.165.68 with SMTP id yw4mr34519607veb.17.1394653267038;
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: g.rowe.froot@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.251.65 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8349e85f-838a-4d93-9302-48b12af03940@me.com>
References: <CAKm8k+3bbhN=Kf2thvtakA7EGcTHDn1ssQm-+Fwf3hAAQmndTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<8349e85f-838a-4d93-9302-48b12af03940@me.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:06 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: usGrViHF7WfBjX2rX-WiEZs-lHs
Message-ID: <CAKm8k+3Luteocn_CFRjU=sxe+iEU7zbXFhxJLOSVApn4CzAfbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(g.rowe.froot[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WNp1c-0005lJ-Fh
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Proposal: Base58 encoded HD Wallet
root key with optional encryption
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, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:15 -0000
--047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
This is purely a MultiBit HD thing. Nothing to do with the BIP, unless the
wider community felt that it would be generally useful.
It has nothing to do with internal word list checking and is purely an
additional check to reduce the blockchain search load for SPV clients when
restoring wallets.
On 12 March 2014 19:35, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 09:49 AM, Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Jean-Paul, it may be worth noting that the BIP39 word list is integrated
> into Bitcoinj so will likely become the de facto standard for Android,
> Trezor web and several desktop wallets. Anyone deviating from that word
> list would likely find themselves in an isolated pocket.
>
> Regarding the timestamp, MultiBit HD uses a simple timestamp of "number of
> days since midnight of Bitcoin genesis block in UTC with modulo 97 checksum
> appended". Thus a new seed generated on 27 January 2014 would have
> "1850/01" as its checksum.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused, are you changing the way the checksum is calculated,
> or fudging the input seed to produce a specific checksum? Or is checksum in
> this case another value calculated over the mnemonic list?
>
>
> When creating a new wallet the users are tested that they have written the
> timestamp down along with the associated 12/18/24 words.
>
>
> So this is specific to MultiBit HD? Wouldn't it be better to include this
> into the BIP?
>
>
--047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">This is purely a MultiBit HD thing. Nothing to do with the=
BIP, unless the wider community felt that it would be generally useful.<di=
v><br></div><div>It has nothing to do with internal word list checking and =
is purely an additional check to reduce the blockchain search load for SPV =
clients when restoring wallets.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12 M=
arch 2014 19:35, Jean-Paul Kogelman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:jeanpaulkogelman@me.com" target=3D"_blank">jeanpaulkogelman@me.com</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D""><div><br><br>On Mar 12,=
2014, at 09:49 AM, Gary Rowe <<a href=3D"mailto:g.rowe@froot.co.uk" tar=
get=3D"_blank">g.rowe@froot.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Jean-Paul, i=
t may be worth noting that the BIP39 word list is integrated into Bitcoinj =
so will likely become the de facto standard for Android, Trezor web and sev=
eral desktop wallets. Anyone deviating from that word list would likely fin=
d themselves in an isolated pocket.<div>
<br></div><div>Regarding the timestamp, MultiBit HD uses a simple timestamp=
of "number of days since midnight of Bitcoin genesis block in UTC wit=
h modulo 97 checksum appended". Thus a new seed generated on 27 Januar=
y 2014 would have "1850/01" as its checksum. </div>
</div></div></blockquote><span>=C2=A0</span></div></div><div>I'm a bit =
confused, are you changing the way the checksum is calculated, or fudging t=
he input seed to produce a specific checksum? Or is checksum in this case a=
nother value calculated over the mnemonic list?</div>
<div><br></div><div><div class=3D""><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div=
dir=3D"ltr"><div>When creating a new wallet the users are tested that they=
have written the timestamp down along with the associated 12/18/24 words.<=
/div>
<div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><span><div><span><br></span></div=
>So this is specific to MultiBit HD? Wouldn't it be better to include t=
his into the BIP?=C2=A0</span></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div=
>
<br></div>
--047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e--
|
