summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/f6/5856090d658c91a1d554c178dbebd81f9ccccb
blob: 907c091e9f654567b39279e4f954ae390d1538dc (plain)
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
Return-Path: <stick@satoshilabs.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C3691A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:56:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:28 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.sldev.cz (mail.sldev.cz [51.254.7.247])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8933162
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C201DE5C9;
	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:53:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sldev.cz
Received: from mail.sldev.cz ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (mail.sl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id J_L7lq2JOn8i; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:53:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tetra.site (unknown [10.8.8.107])
	by mail.sldev.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02CEFE379;
	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:53:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>
Message-ID: <342485b4-586d-c753-94b6-999d5fc14e46@satoshilabs.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:48:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="4LCevjfOnnxFeujlSlDpAU49Jas7t5WaF"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
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: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:56:27 -0000

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--4LCevjfOnnxFeujlSlDpAU49Jas7t5WaF
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="CdLgkDH4ctiraEJieWgJd4oIVAXGtlCdP"
From: Pavol Rusnak <stick@satoshilabs.com>
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <342485b4-586d-c753-94b6-999d5fc14e46@satoshilabs.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
In-Reply-To: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>

--CdLgkDH4ctiraEJieWgJd4oIVAXGtlCdP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think it does not make sense to try to get this standardized for
current Bitcoin transactions. They are just too complex.

What might be interesting is to have something similar for Segwit and
Lightning transactions.

* TREZOR performs extended validation of the inputs, when all of
prev-txs are streamed into the device and validated. Your standard does
not tackle this at all and I don't think it's worthy to make this
standard unnecessarily complicated.

--=20
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol "stick" Rusnak
SatoshiLabs.com


--CdLgkDH4ctiraEJieWgJd4oIVAXGtlCdP--

--4LCevjfOnnxFeujlSlDpAU49Jas7t5WaF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=R8G0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4LCevjfOnnxFeujlSlDpAU49Jas7t5WaF--