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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <thomasv1@gmx.de>) id 1W6juj-0007jI-0t
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:47:29 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.de
designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender)
client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=thomasv1@gmx.de;
helo=mout.gmx.net;
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W6juh-0001LR-RV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:47:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.27] ([86.73.30.122]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with
ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LqALY-1VbmsD2B60-00dneg for
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:47:21 +0100
Message-ID: <52E29919.7030404@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:47:21 +0100
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv1@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAJna-HjGHpru6Lpv_tXUkWR2mX-=fobzojtHYvSRJy6+CMesOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANg-TZCrpT-YJ0WV9VY6w-PtCiz2YRMBCMvmjneDz13j2namkw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140120223502.GA1055@petertodd.org>
<CANOOu=_pVCPiDtbqc3EwToZWzjLw4UqOvpsu2Wrt4eDKC7g_2g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJna-HgStwQQUiNZfJrFS1SduuzEEVrF=qmVe23uqZUNhHkOHA@mail.gmail.com>
<52DDB8AB.4010103@gmx.de> <20140124090532.GB15398@savin>
In-Reply-To: <20140124090532.GB15398@savin>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:EIBOwCR1FtEy9X0F3FphuORIUKNnYexaCtTUlV9+SKvUJay981k
EI5vkRbC4hic6/ZdZUKQSRk7EUsUU7Zs60zSuklf3+Vpm4/MD8cB+d1oXnJIMtOb1UPAVAx
4hun2eTiRVLGyGvdvzJqlzZ684ZQs64hFo3BTA9rYm1wfHkY2Tzxoxi7Kfnnx3+rCzXmm+t
gV5Btxo/qzWcww++4z/+g==
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [212.227.17.20 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-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
(thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (thomasv1[at]gmx.de)
X-Headers-End: 1W6juh-0001LR-RV
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:47:29 -0000
Le 24/01/2014 10:05, Peter Todd a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:00:43AM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>> Hi slush,
>>
>> Thank you for your new proposal; it seems to be a compromise.
>>
>> @Christophe Biocca:
>> If the wordlist becomes part of the standard, then we will run into
>> problems of collisions once users ask for wordlists in every language.
>>
>> IMO the right approach is to implement checksums that do not depend
>> on the wordlist (eg the 'brute force' method, Hash(mnemonic||1) mod
>> 2^k == 0 )
>> this would also allow us to implement sipa's variable stretching proposal.
>>
>> I understand this is not possible because of the computational
>> requirements of devices such as trezor.
> Is it? Surely the trezor can bruteforce, say, 8 bits == 0. How many
> SHA256/sec can the trezor hardware do? Generating your seed is a
> one-time thing after all - that taking 10-30s doesn't seem like a big
> deal to me.
>
> Even a 1/256th "checksum" will really cut down on the number of mistakes
> made and money lost.
slush, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the only reason:
They want to generate a seed by combining entropy from the trezor device
and from the user's computer;
In addition, they want the computer to be able to check that the seed
actually was derived from the entropy it provided, using only a master
public key (the computer does not have access to the seed)
This is why they designed bip39 that way.
I think the new bip39 proposal could be used in Electrum as an option
for trezor, but I am reluctant to make it default, because it imposes
its own dictionary.
|
