path: root/cf/64fe5ab8f807898dd47a6cf7e1e347084baa1c

Return-Path: <corey3@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE73E305
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:14:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it0-f53.google.com (mail-it0-f53.google.com
	[209.85.214.53])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE4F10E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:14:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f53.google.com with SMTP id d65so73133997ith.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=mwheKuEz8RtzuicPoeTUx9RgzJAQjkvet1Ik+K3ZvgM=;
	b=gRpW6tfGbNsLtvHFNC3ewiCfXGOAGtunHpgkTJjm8XDW02gR/OAwScyKqXNGBgHF+2
	6zvZ383Eg8XuO3mT0mROVmgmWrpUrtYlAe66oc/8lg7Xf2hov6XiFveYAn01hXOP1Otx
	g+GnyiBc3BwMidYEfM/W61h8UMqKD2FiI9QU1HU3TvB0AWCFvTJEJpSZOOKr7MZLfqQ+
	YvQlOghTngiiyaINQa2c9kXpMepf9NGBq1uBuH0l++lE4mz8Vyc/uzJ7kmY+c8HdU+vY
	y/OnRMid5qJg97Ue/aozzeBzMYQWItSts3S3QA6uxrbrIOooLn+u4BjMLOyhgC02Qo+q
	ewww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=mwheKuEz8RtzuicPoeTUx9RgzJAQjkvet1Ik+K3ZvgM=;
	b=BgjxpEn+A0P89y3Sh+o4I12Z9wME95kdJEGvl23aQwEFJTG0iPSw9JzpqhYX5VnvSR
	Ztra8LDhq2bjqD5i/9M5Sh2+pD4WL3E8fLJRMIQIYIqS7D4GPBGL9naN9X18CcZgv2wl
	J+AJU2lZ0ngG+Imxoy7y3lPWpIZ1lRlXTY6hcFw08/T0xMEnDgAU93rj3x/1pYlxmDBO
	SwzEsgnASNy+N65imuKYYBVPtW2p8Zqvyi+ISe2y3PF6aW9u6/H4sAj7aGJ7XCgudmQv
	+h2kS4OY6yRN4pCQpgvHkkLnJquP8FCPT5GnVQ69fKiHQdaycJZuh2UPNNXCqVEa5qt3
	mLfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN7su0A0i1TVSH3XfO+PGhhtE5sHuPL2Rdqld9qZ1VnAAvsPvcHZWEsvqucuwzV/tJ0RVkU1xOgIrm7Ww==
X-Received: by 10.36.227.78 with SMTP id d75mr10726585ith.75.1472426044666;
	Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.73 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACiOHGycQKr3zETzhOfxzOFb2FgqOou_3bod66NuPWbf=4hhEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57B31EBC.1030806@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<CACiOHGycQKr3zETzhOfxzOFb2FgqOou_3bod66NuPWbf=4hhEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Corey Haddad <corey3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:14:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK_HAC-AeJPDa6+SU3wPtnP_UJ_WciyhYZAu9F7_6S02ZGZvaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Moral Agent <ethan.scruples@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c111de859b915053b29e73b
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:14:06 -0000

--94eb2c111de859b915053b29e73b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

*One of my biggest fears about using any wallet is the "whoops, cosmic ray
flipped a bit while producing receiving address; SFYL!" possibility. For
high value cold storage, I always generate my addresses on two independent
machines using two different pieces of software. Am I nuts for doing that?*
A randomly flipped bit would be extremely unlikely to yield a valid
address, however, I still think it you are wise to use independent routes
to confirm that your addresses match the keys.  I do the same when I
generating my cold storage key pairs.  I think malicious address
substitution is an under appreciated attack vector.

Regarding this thread in general, would it make sense for this proposal to
include standards for multi-sig wallet interoperability?  A whole spectrum
of attacks would be made less likely - and easy for typical users to guard
against - by using wallets on separate devices AND where the wallet
software was written and provided by different parties.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Moral Agent via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> It would be nice if the detached signer and the normal wallet could both
> verify the correctness of generated addresses before you cause coins to be
> sent there.
>
> e.g. the hardware wallet could give its master public key to Bitcoin Core
> and you can thereafter generate your receiving addresses on Core, with the
> option to have the HW wallet validate them.
>
> One of my biggest fears about using any wallet is the "whoops, cosmic ray
> flipped a bit while producing receiving address; SFYL!" possibility. For
> high value cold storage, I always generate my addresses on two independent
> machines using two different pieces of software. Am I nuts for doing that?
>
> With the above scheme, you are pretty well protected from losing money if
> your HW wallet is defective. You could still lose it if the HW wallet was
> evil of course, but that strikes me as much more likely to be discovered
> quickly.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--94eb2c111de859b915053b29e73b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><i>One of my biggest fears about using any wallet is =
the &quot;whoops,=20
cosmic ray flipped a bit while producing receiving address; SFYL!&quot;=20
possibility. For high value cold storage, I always generate my addresses
 on two independent machines using two different pieces of software. Am I
 nuts for doing that?<br><br></i></div><div>A randomly flipped bit would be=
 extremely unlikely to yield a valid address, however, I still think it you=
 are wise to use independent routes to confirm that your addresses match th=
e keys.=C2=A0 I do the same when I generating my cold storage key pairs.=C2=
=A0 I think malicious address substitution is an under appreciated attack v=
ector.<br><br></div><div>Regarding this thread in general, would it make se=
nse for this proposal to include standards for multi-sig wallet interoperab=
ility?=C2=A0 A whole spectrum of attacks would be made less likely - and ea=
sy for typical users to guard against - by using wallets on separate device=
s AND where the wallet software was written and provided by different parti=
es.<br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
">On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Moral Agent via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D=
"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">It would be nice if the det=
ached signer and the normal wallet could both verify the correctness of gen=
erated addresses before you cause coins to be sent there.<div><br></div><di=
v>e.g. the hardware wallet could give its master public key to Bitcoin Core=
 and you can thereafter generate your receiving addresses on Core, with the=
 option to have the HW wallet validate them.</div><div><br></div><div>One o=
f my biggest fears about using any wallet is the &quot;whoops, cosmic ray f=
lipped a bit while producing receiving address; SFYL!&quot; possibility. Fo=
r high value cold storage, I always generate my addresses on two independen=
t machines using two different pieces of software. Am I nuts for doing that=
?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">With=
 the above scheme, you are pretty well protected from losing money if your =
HW wallet is defective. You could still lose it if the HW wallet was evil o=
f course, but that strikes me as much more likely to be discovered quickly.=
</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c111de859b915053b29e73b--