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
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
|
Return-Path: <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C7C8B1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:34:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from server3 (server3.include7.ch [144.76.194.38])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFCD17D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:34:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server3 (Postfix, from userid 115)
id C9EB22E60612; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:34:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from Jonass-MacBook-Pro-2.local (cable-static-140-182.teleport.ch
[87.102.140.182]) by server3 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 044682D001BD;
Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:34:39 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Dana L. Coe" <dana.coe@bitlox.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
<e740b4e0-0597-4f80-2434-70e667b7923c@gmail.com>
<9c8dd0e5-e333-90c8-965f-10fb29d875a5@thomaskerin.io>
<57B4113E.4010502@jonasschnelli.ch>
<D41B40FA-0C75-496D-937A-0DF733FB87E2@bitlox.com>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <57B44BCB.3010400@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:34:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D41B40FA-0C75-496D-937A-0DF733FB87E2@bitlox.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="wCTk9xjvjKcSEAeABAlPkp2GdRVfKSC6n"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:34:43 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--wCTk9xjvjKcSEAeABAlPkp2GdRVfKSC6n
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="UHQ17xuDfiuDle6Gx1dd8SBc4tqjpSBPN"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: "Dana L. Coe" <dana.coe@bitlox.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <57B44BCB.3010400@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardware Wallet Standard
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
<e740b4e0-0597-4f80-2434-70e667b7923c@gmail.com>
<9c8dd0e5-e333-90c8-965f-10fb29d875a5@thomaskerin.io>
<57B4113E.4010502@jonasschnelli.ch>
<D41B40FA-0C75-496D-937A-0DF733FB87E2@bitlox.com>
In-Reply-To: <D41B40FA-0C75-496D-937A-0DF733FB87E2@bitlox.com>
--UHQ17xuDfiuDle6Gx1dd8SBc4tqjpSBPN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dana
>> The URI scheme does not require any sorts of wallet app level
>> configuration (where the stdio/pipe approach would require to configur=
e
>> some details about the used hardware wallet).
>=20
> Hi everybody, just thought I=92d throw my opinion in here.
>=20
> The URI scheme is a nice idea, but this ignores the fact that hardware =
wallet vendors do most of the work on talking between the computer/mobile=
and the wallet on a lower level of communication. In the case of BitLox,=
the base protocol is Google=92s ProtoBuf. The commands and transaction d=
ata is in a =93schema=94 which is then encoded in different methods acces=
sible via ProtoBuf (depending on the data being sent). The advantages of =
this protocol is that it can be implemented on a wide variety of platform=
s. (but that=92s a whole 'nother discussion)
>=20
> The URI would be handled waaaaay up in the specific application (such a=
s the mytrezor wallet software or the various standalone wallets) - nowhe=
re near the actual hardware communications layer.
This is maybe a question of the scope.
The BIP I'm proposing would make a clear interface cut between
wallet-with-unsigned-transaction and a signing-device (and maybe between
wallet-requires-pubkey, signing-device generate some pubkeys [or
non-hardened xpub]).
The detached-signing proposal does not duplicate work. It just moves the
current plugin design into a separate application. Plugins in security
and privacy critical wallet software is something that should probably
be avoided.
It's intentional at a high level to allow maximum flexibility at the
hardware interaction layer.
Your protobuf example is a good use-case. You could implement your
custom processes behind the URI scheme (which is probably way more
efficient then writing a couple of wallet plugins where you =96 at the en=
d
=96 mostly don't control the deployment and the source-code).
Defining a standard on the hardware interaction layer is possible, but a
fairly different approach.
</jonas>
--UHQ17xuDfiuDle6Gx1dd8SBc4tqjpSBPN--
--wCTk9xjvjKcSEAeABAlPkp2GdRVfKSC6n
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=x2IO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--wCTk9xjvjKcSEAeABAlPkp2GdRVfKSC6n--
|
