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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VBhPg-00077k-QG
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:35:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.50; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f50.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com ([209.85.215.50])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1VBhPc-0000Uo-HF
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:35:40 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ek20so87675lab.37
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.14.102 with SMTP id o6mr1751468lbc.28.1376987729784;
	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.72 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQFOei6we8nfSr9DuQuHEjXT+G8_XGMk9um14DBgRuPyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgQFOei6we8nfSr9DuQuHEjXT+G8_XGMk9um14DBgRuPyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:35:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRkEFK5csXhCdArLaA_ZsFutkBBVLdHuwTn5xE-39zw3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>, 
	Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
	(gmaxwell[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: 1VBhPc-0000Uo-HF
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 32.5
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:35:41 -0000

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if we shouldn't have a BIP32 addendum which makes the
> following signing related recommendations:

Looks like we're in the midst of another DSA duplicated K disaster.
(Now, blockchain.info mywallet)

I talked to Pieter about this some earlier today and he sounded pretty
positive. I'll go ahead and start on an actual BIP document for it.