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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net>) id 1YVsps-0000aX-Cm
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:26:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of niftybox.net
designates 95.142.167.147 as permitted sender)
client-ip=95.142.167.147;
envelope-from=c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net; helo=i3.hyper.to;
Received: from i3.hyper.to ([95.142.167.147])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YVspq-0007aL-Qf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:26:56 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A00E0030;
Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:26:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from i3.hyper.to ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (i3.hyper.to [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032)
with ESMTP id slJI1fcx00Bf; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:26:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942F6E0035;
Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:26:47 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at i3.hyper.to
Received: from i3.hyper.to ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (i3.hyper.to [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
with ESMTP id b2LYYyK34U4P; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:26:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.1.10.188] (142-254-47-143.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net
[142.254.47.143])
by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D62BCE0030;
Thu, 12 Mar 2015 03:26:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5500F965.1010604@niftybox.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:26:45 -0700
From: devrandom <c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thy Shizzle <harro84@yahoo.com.au>
References: <372541993.4372759.1426123313134.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <372541993.4372759.1426123313134.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YVspq-0007aL-Qf
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:26:56 -0000
On 2015-03-11 06:21 PM, Thy Shizzle wrote:
> Hmmmm I don't think it's fair to say that there has been a failure to
> standardise. From what I read earlier among the wallets, mostly it came
> down to if a version was noted and the date. Assuming no date is
> provided, it just means you are scanning the block chain from day 0 for
> transactions right? Hardly a big deal as you will still recover funds right?
Unfortunately there's more incompatibility than just the date issue:
* seed: some follow BIP39, and some roll their own
* HD structure: some follow BIP44, some BIP32 derivation, and some roll
their own
So actually very few wallets are seed-compatible, even ignoring the date
question.
>
> Version right now is irrelevant as there is only one version of BIP39
> currently, probably this will change as 2048 iterations of HMACSHA512
> will likely need to be up scaled in the future, I thought about adding
> one extra word into the mnemonic to signify version, so if you have a 12
> word mnemonic then you have 12 words + 1 word version. Version 1 has no
> extra word, version 2 uses the first word on the list, version 3 uses
> the second word on the wordlist, so on and so forth. Least that's what I
> was thinking of doing if I ever had to record a version, won't effect
> anything because entropy increases in blocks of 3 words so one extra
> word can simply be thrown on the end.
That's a reasonable solution.
>
> So in summary I feel that date can be handled by assuming day 0, and
> version is not an issue yet but may become one and probably it is a good
> idea to think about standardising a version into BIP39, I have
> provided a seed idea for discussion.
>
> I don't think it is quite the doom and gloom I'm reading :)
>
>
> devrandom:
> "I'd like to offer that the best practice for the shared wallet use case
> should be multi-device multi-sig. The mobile has a key, the desktop has
> a key and a third-party security oracle has a third key. The oracle
> would have different security thresholds for countersigning the mobile.
>
> This way you can have the same overall wallet on all devices, but
> different security profiles on different keys.
>
> That said, I do agree that mnemonic phrases should be portable, and find
> it unfortunate that the ecosystem is failing to standardize on phrase
> handling."
--
devrandom / Miron
|
