* [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 @ 2015-06-30 17:53 Justus Ranvier 2015-07-01 17:07 ` Kristov Atlas 2015-09-04 0:06 ` Luke Dashjr 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-06-30 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-dev 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-06-30 17:53 [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 Justus Ranvier @ 2015-07-01 17:07 ` Kristov Atlas 2015-07-02 15:45 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-04 0:06 ` Luke Dashjr 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kristov Atlas @ 2015-07-01 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justus Ranvier; +Cc: bitcoin-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 605 bytes --] Hi Justus, What are the potential applications for this BIP? -Kr On Jun 30, 2015 1:53 PM, "Justus Ranvier" <justus.ranvier@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 > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1218 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-07-01 17:07 ` Kristov Atlas @ 2015-07-02 15:45 ` Justus Ranvier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-07-02 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kristov Atlas; +Cc: bitcoin-dev 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.lists@gmail•com> wrote: > Hi Justus, > > What are the potential applications for this BIP? > > -Kr > > On Jun 30, 2015 1:53 PM, "Justus Ranvier" <justus.ranvier@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-06-30 17:53 [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 Justus Ranvier 2015-07-01 17:07 ` Kristov Atlas @ 2015-09-04 0:06 ` Luke Dashjr 2015-09-04 17:48 ` Justus Ranvier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-09-04 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-dev; +Cc: Justus Ranvier 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-09-04 0:06 ` Luke Dashjr @ 2015-09-04 17:48 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-04 18:21 ` Luke Dashjr 2015-09-05 11:17 ` Jorge Timón 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-09-04 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-dev [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --] 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/ justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623 [-- Attachment #1.2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18667 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-09-04 17:48 ` Justus Ranvier @ 2015-09-04 18:21 ` Luke Dashjr 2015-09-04 18:25 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-05 11:17 ` Jorge Timón 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-09-04 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justus Ranvier; +Cc: bitcoin-dev 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-09-04 18:21 ` Luke Dashjr @ 2015-09-04 18:25 ` Justus Ranvier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-09-04 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luke Dashjr; +Cc: bitcoin-dev [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 622 bytes --] On 09/04/2015 01:21 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > This is not Bitcoin's problem... Polluting the BIP repository with N non- > Bitcoin related specifications would be. HD generation of keypairs from a single seed for many non-conflicting uses is a valuable and useful technique. Intentionally making a useful technology less useful because assigning non-colliding numbers is too hard is a strange approach to software engineering. -- Justus Ranvier Open Bitcoin Privacy Project http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/ justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject•org E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623 [-- Attachment #1.2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18667 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-09-04 17:48 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-04 18:21 ` Luke Dashjr @ 2015-09-05 11:17 ` Jorge Timón 2015-09-05 16:48 ` Christophe Biocca 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-09-05 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justus Ranvier; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --] On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 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/ > justus@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 > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2331 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-09-05 11:17 ` Jorge Timón @ 2015-09-05 16:48 ` Christophe Biocca 2015-09-06 2:09 ` Jorge Timón 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Christophe Biocca @ 2015-09-05 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jorge Timón; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev I will point out that the current situation is not an accident: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=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 Timón <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 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/ >> justus@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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 2015-09-05 16:48 ` Christophe Biocca @ 2015-09-06 2:09 ` Jorge Timón 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-09-06 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christophe Biocca; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail•com> wrote: > I will point out that the current situation is not an accident: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=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 <luke@dashjr•org> 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... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-06 2:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-06-30 17:53 [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 Justus Ranvier 2015-07-01 17:07 ` Kristov Atlas 2015-07-02 15:45 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-04 0:06 ` Luke Dashjr 2015-09-04 17:48 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-04 18:21 ` Luke Dashjr 2015-09-04 18:25 ` Justus Ranvier 2015-09-05 11:17 ` Jorge Timón 2015-09-05 16:48 ` Christophe Biocca 2015-09-06 2:09 ` Jorge Timón
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox