Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B29DC000B for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA8082D03 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:05:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GetcGRv0iNv8 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:05:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8F6F82CEC for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id o11so8472034pgs.4 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 05:05:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9WrU2qbU9ZWv0LA7GHsZSFwGB3kUdLsDKnrkJ+RPaV8=; b=qpAw0Z2w6aZTL4JU+x1RqH8LaTvIgRDWBQ/BUL9SFP7QSs6uUp0Dde48NGuIIKX11x t91/duRZITdd/RauiMKE+fZt9nB5rhaWZ8Ig+JfLD6d9CQs6DTF3wFXiynXNFBMW0aJm LnwQH7u7iRDaOsZsodIWDvuxk4LJqbJf2hcjz8GNWhLHTt9OhD+ciujHIAHP1Le13Czo kscIWQ1uuU8vtonOleD2a1IeJ0e1HFme+9IW4t20Rh30/WQwXVTC9MQBsSdu7U/RaRIQ ZluOCJrL4nFrOLdQ8tUlgyeyBxXTA5AjTHgZ2zA0+bgzW9E0kc023c//E6ulswHyHukY jeAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9WrU2qbU9ZWv0LA7GHsZSFwGB3kUdLsDKnrkJ+RPaV8=; b=GukUNgCgLp3oBT00kQFlweQCEM+EqbWKv6QRcXIrrHx5RESxlAeoizI04THT8EB7F3 VzVoevv49JP/4Ip81tvjdv5GH6OTraKF4eE/vK92JBuDok4tW+O2AqGaBLz6Ab3LS8Eq FGOmGUZW8LzLfOWiBc9TNdcS2wdosDP5/zc+TjqOYIaZyfD2tocwX/N/Qio/2O9wJlD1 eWDZ2se2GgRCrbOO6GJqoiLkw+RVke2aKRO0Hu/Kxc0bi4/RaxyDEwTzV60oZvpSyUND Pd8lFTaHi6UOSHwd0sJd/67MRwdXGj4pBtNWZEkOH+JuMqSKcCsQlJ+YTDPtePfk0szG PVUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530r5yPaZ6GcqiMuFYdbi8Ijq67QUA1CIWUPr9elC4PZBbT6MSGH ELqEGFKXsn0bGvpLyaLpeP3wP5E/cXPIOpG6fTm7fsYq3yL1 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxllFrxXFApQleVTckD8Df+ga6HoJzzKqMYsHqPw48BI1qJuLIarVD653Y79isQWhTOzaKBN4wXcZrmawqvQfE= X-Received: by 2002:a63:c807:: with SMTP id z7mr10686066pgg.363.1616414723965; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 05:05:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <125859088-3f93e6aca40d5c3244243540270cdb84@pmq7v.m5r2.onet> <23C3AD3A-DB4B-4E0B-9280-2F102CA43703@arik.io> In-Reply-To: <23C3AD3A-DB4B-4E0B-9280-2F102CA43703@arik.io> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:13 -0400 Message-ID: To: linuxfoundation@arik.io Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:30:52 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An alternative to BIP 32? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:05:25 -0000 yes that would be fine. not sure what your objection to sha3 is tho (more provably secure) - i guess sticking with bitcoin-lib stuff tho. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:08 PM Arik Sosman wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > Would sha256-hmac(nonce, publicKeyPoint) still be a suitable/safe alternative without relying on sha3? That should at the very least eliminate length extension attacks. > > Best, > Arik > > > On Mar 19, 2021, at 6:32 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > use sha3-256. sha256 suffers from certain attacks (length extension, > > for example) that could make your scheme vulnerable to leaking info, > > depending on how you concatenate things, etc. better to choose > > something where padding doesn't matter. > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:28 PM vjudeu via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > >> > >> I recently found some interesting and simple HD wallet design here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5321992.0 > >> Could anyone see any flaws in such design or is it safe enough to implement it and use in practice? > >> If I understand it correctly, it is just pure ECDSA and SHA-256, nothing else: > >> > >> masterPublicKey = masterPrivateKey * G > >> masterChildPublicKey = masterPublicKey + ( SHA-256( masterPublicKey || nonce ) mod n ) * G > >> masterChildPrivateKey = masterPrivateKey + ( SHA-256( masterPublicKey || nonce ) mod n ) > >> > >> Also, it has some nice properties, like all keys starting with 02 prefix and allows potentially unlimited custom derivation path by using 256-bit nonce. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >