Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
I will point out that the current situation is not an accident: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=44 is a great place to get some context for what happened. I believe you can also find the other half of this discussion on the mailing list archives. The cointypes being simple integers was how the code worked as shipped (in the trezor), so changing the semantics after the fact wasn't a possibility. The BIP repository didn't want to constantly deal with updates unrelated to Bitcoin proper, so a decision was made to move that part of the standard to a repository willing to handle it. On 5 September 2015 at 07:17, Jorge Timónwrote: > > On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" > wrote: >> >> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non- >> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository: >> > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/ >> >> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to >> that company in particular? >> >> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of >> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a >> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit. > The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not: > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_coin_types > > It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of > having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to > maintain competing registries. > > Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain > ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a > registry in the first place. > >> -- >> Justus Ranvier >> Open Bitcoin Privacy Project >> http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/ >> jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org >> E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623 >> >> ___ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > ___ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Christophe Bioccawrote: > I will point out that the current situation is not an accident: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=44 is a great > place to get some context for what happened. I believe you can also > find the other half of this discussion on the mailing list archives. > > The cointypes being simple integers was how the code worked as shipped > (in the trezor), so changing the semantics after the fact wasn't a > possibility. > > The BIP repository didn't want to constantly deal with updates > unrelated to Bitcoin proper, so a decision was made to move that part > of the standard to a repository willing to handle it. This is in fact useful. The centralized registries themselves are fine provided that we don't rely on having only one of them or in them having the same values for the same chains. Trezor can maintain its own too. Future versions of Trezor could support full chain IDs instead of these integers (or keep using these integers forever, whatever they chose to do). On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 11:17:52 AM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not: >> >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_c >> oin_types >> >> It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of >> having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to >> maintain competing registries. >> >> Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain >> ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a >> registry in the first place. > > No, because different chains may very well use the same genesis block. Can you read my reasoning here? http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010861.html What I propose is retro-compatible, even for carelessly designed chains (that allowed pre-mining) like FTC. And provides securely unique IDs that don't require a centralized registry. Maybe I should start a Chain IDs BIP... ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
On Friday, September 04, 2015 5:48:48 PM Justus Ranvier wrote: > On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non- > > > > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository: > > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/ > > What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to > that company in particular? Feel free to create a company-independent repository instead. Although I don't think SLIPs are intended to be biased toward their company. > BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of > purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a > separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit. This is not Bitcoin's problem... Polluting the BIP repository with N non- Bitcoin related specifications would be. Luke ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non- > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository: > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/ What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to that company in particular? BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit. -- Justus Ranvier Open Bitcoin Privacy Project http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/ jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623 0xEAD9E623.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:53:05 PM Justus Ranvier wrote: > Monetas has developed a Bitmessage address derivation method from an > HD seed based on BIP-43. > > https://github.com/monetas/bips/blob/bitmessage/bip-bm01.mediawiki > > We're proposing this as a BIP per the BIP-43 recommendation in order > to reserve a purpose code. Bitmessage is not Bitcoin, thus this falls outside the scope of the BIP process. Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non- Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository: https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/ Luke ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
The primary purpose is to allow Bitmessage users to benefit from eternal key backups by generating their addresses from a seed. In addition, they can use the same seed for a Bitcoin wallet and a Bitmessage client. This method also enables future use cases where senders calculate Bitmessage addresses based on a recipient's extended public key and some other index value. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Kristov Atlas kristovatlas.li...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Justus, What are the potential applications for this BIP? -Kr On Jun 30, 2015 1:53 PM, Justus Ranvier justus.ranv...@monetas.net wrote: Monetas has developed a Bitmessage address derivation method from an HD seed based on BIP-43. https://github.com/monetas/bips/blob/bitmessage/bip-bm01.mediawiki We're proposing this as a BIP per the BIP-43 recommendation in order to reserve a purpose code. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43
Hi Justus, What are the potential applications for this BIP? -Kr On Jun 30, 2015 1:53 PM, Justus Ranvier justus.ranv...@monetas.net wrote: Monetas has developed a Bitmessage address derivation method from an HD seed based on BIP-43. https://github.com/monetas/bips/blob/bitmessage/bip-bm01.mediawiki We're proposing this as a BIP per the BIP-43 recommendation in order to reserve a purpose code. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev