MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <34198916-cde9-c84d-ca41-9feb8956bd80@electrum.org>
References: <34198916-cde9-c84d-ca41-9feb8956bd80@electrum.org>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:29:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgukwdRvfFcgdusrXoo8RiXm8OEL-WvHzjpiD8_HU5KmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f6d8c113a4d05595966bb"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] proposal: extend WIF format for segwit
Precedence: list

--f403045f6d8c113a4d05595966bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sep 15, 2017 01:56, "Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Note 3: we could also use a bech32 format for the private key, if it is
going to be used with a bech32 address. I am not sure if such a format
has been proposed already.


I've been working on an "extended bech32" format with 12 character checksum
rather than 6, for private keys and other things that need stronger
protection. It would guarantee correcting 4 errors, where normal bech32 can
only detect (but not correct) 4.

The rationale is that in the case of an address, if an error is detected,
you can ask the receiver for a corrected version. As that option doesn't
exist for private keys you want something stronger.

This has been a low-priority thing for me, though, and the computation work
to find a good checksum is significant.

Cheers,

-- 
Pieter

--f403045f6d8c113a4d05595966bb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Sep 15, 2017 01:56, &quot;Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev&quot=
; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Note 3: we could also use a bech32 format for the private key, if it is<br>
going to be used with a bech32 address. I am not sure if such a format<br>
has been proposed already.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><b=
r></div><div dir=3D"auto">I&#39;ve been working on an &quot;extended bech32=
&quot; format with 12 character checksum rather than 6, for private keys an=
d other things that need stronger protection. It would guarantee correcting=
 4 errors, where normal bech32 can only detect (but not correct) 4.</div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The rationale is that in the ca=
se of an address, if an error is detected, you can ask the receiver for a c=
orrected version. As that option doesn&#39;t exist for private keys you wan=
t something stronger.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Th=
is has been a low-priority thing for me, though, and the computation work t=
o find a good checksum is significant.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto">Cheers,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">-=
-=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">Pieter</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
 class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote =
class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div></div>

--f403045f6d8c113a4d05595966bb--