Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WNp1f-0001Hg-Oc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.174; envelope-from=g.rowe.froot@gmail.com; helo=mail-vc0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WNp1c-0005lJ-Fh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:15 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ld13so5325673vcb.5 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:41:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.165.68 with SMTP id yw4mr34519607veb.17.1394653267038; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: g.rowe.froot@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.251.65 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8349e85f-838a-4d93-9302-48b12af03940@me.com> References: <8349e85f-838a-4d93-9302-48b12af03940@me.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:06 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: usGrViHF7WfBjX2rX-WiEZs-lHs Message-ID: From: Gary Rowe To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (g.rowe.froot[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WNp1c-0005lJ-Fh Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Proposal: Base58 encoded HD Wallet root key with optional encryption X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:41:15 -0000 --047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is purely a MultiBit HD thing. Nothing to do with the BIP, unless the wider community felt that it would be generally useful. It has nothing to do with internal word list checking and is purely an additional check to reduce the blockchain search load for SPV clients when restoring wallets. On 12 March 2014 19:35, Jean-Paul Kogelman wrote: > > > On Mar 12, 2014, at 09:49 AM, Gary Rowe wrote: > > Jean-Paul, it may be worth noting that the BIP39 word list is integrated > into Bitcoinj so will likely become the de facto standard for Android, > Trezor web and several desktop wallets. Anyone deviating from that word > list would likely find themselves in an isolated pocket. > > Regarding the timestamp, MultiBit HD uses a simple timestamp of "number of > days since midnight of Bitcoin genesis block in UTC with modulo 97 checksum > appended". Thus a new seed generated on 27 January 2014 would have > "1850/01" as its checksum. > > > I'm a bit confused, are you changing the way the checksum is calculated, > or fudging the input seed to produce a specific checksum? Or is checksum in > this case another value calculated over the mnemonic list? > > > When creating a new wallet the users are tested that they have written the > timestamp down along with the associated 12/18/24 words. > > > So this is specific to MultiBit HD? Wouldn't it be better to include this > into the BIP? > > --047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is purely a MultiBit HD thing. Nothing to do with the= BIP, unless the wider community felt that it would be generally useful.
It has nothing to do with internal word list checking and = is purely an additional check to reduce the blockchain search load for SPV = clients when restoring wallets.


On 12 M= arch 2014 19:35, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>= wrote:


On Mar 12,= 2014, at 09:49 AM, Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk> wrote:

Jean-Paul, i= t may be worth noting that the BIP39 word list is integrated into Bitcoinj = so will likely become the de facto standard for Android, Trezor web and sev= eral desktop wallets. Anyone deviating from that word list would likely fin= d themselves in an isolated pocket.

Regarding the timestamp, MultiBit HD uses a simple timestamp= of "number of days since midnight of Bitcoin genesis block in UTC wit= h modulo 97 checksum appended". Thus a new seed generated on 27 Januar= y 2014 would have "1850/01" as its checksum.
=C2=A0
I'm a bit = confused, are you changing the way the checksum is calculated, or fudging t= he input seed to produce a specific checksum? Or is checksum in this case a= nother value calculated over the mnemonic list?


When creating a new wallet the users are tested that they= have written the timestamp down along with the associated 12/18/24 words.<= /div>

So this is specific to MultiBit HD? Wouldn't it be better to include t= his into the BIP?=C2=A0


--047d7b677702911b9804f46e040e--