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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>) id 1W5NvM-0003lU-8p
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:06:32 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.42;
envelope-from=christophe.biocca@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pb0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-pb0-f42.google.com ([209.85.160.42])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W5NvK-000506-GY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:06:32 +0000
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id jt11so5516789pbb.29
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.93.165 with SMTP id cv5mr21062934pbb.98.1390259184600;
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.146.72 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140120223502.GA1055@petertodd.org>
References: <CAJna-HjGHpru6Lpv_tXUkWR2mX-=fobzojtHYvSRJy6+CMesOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANg-TZCrpT-YJ0WV9VY6w-PtCiz2YRMBCMvmjneDz13j2namkw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140120223502.GA1055@petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:06:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CANOOu=_pVCPiDtbqc3EwToZWzjLw4UqOvpsu2Wrt4eDKC7g_2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(christophe.biocca[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1W5NvK-000506-GY
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP0039: Final call
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: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:06:32 -0000
I remember the wordlist choice getting bikeshedded to death a month ago.
I would just include the wordlist as part of the standard (as a
recommendation) so that fully compliant implementations can correct a
user's typos regardless of the original generator.
Those who don't like it will have to deal with the compatibility
concerns themselves, or get an alternate wordlist approved as a BIP.
Odds are no one will go that route.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:05:14PM -0600, Brooks Boyd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we received
>> > from the community about our BIP39 proposal and we tried to meet all
>> > requirements for such standard. Specifically the proposal now doesn't
>> > require any specific wordlist, so every client can use its very own list of
>> > preferred words. Generated mnemonic can be then applied to any other
>> > BIP39-compatible client. Please follow current draft at
>> > https://github.com/trezor/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki.
>>
>> So, because the [mnemonic]->[bip32 root] is just hashing, you've
>> effectively made your "mnemonic sentence" into a brainwallet? Since every
>> mnemonic sentence can now lead to a bip32 root, and only the client that
>> created the mnemonic can verify the mnemonic passes its checksum (assuming
>> all clients use different wordlists, the only client that can help you if
>> you fat-finger the sentence is the client that created it)?
>
> That issue is more than enough to get a NACK from me on making the
> current BIP39 draft a standard - I can easily see that leading to users
> losing a lot of money.
>
> Have any wallets implemented BIP39 this way already in released code?
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000009c3092c0b245722363df8b29cfbb86368f4f7303e655983a
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
