* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 40, Issue 9
2014-09-23 17:57 ` [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 40, Issue 9 Vitalik Buterin
@ 2014-09-23 18:45 ` Alan Reiner
2014-09-23 19:57 ` Vitalik Buterin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Alan Reiner @ 2014-09-23 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vitalik Buterin; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9712 bytes --]
Yes, we sort the keys at each address as well. But this isn't about key
sorting, it's about assigning each device a different branch of the BIP 32
tree to avoid accidental address re use and to make it self evident which
devices were used for each transaction in the overall wallet history. I
only suggested sorting the root public keys as a way to assign which
internal/external pair of chains the device should use.
@Justus... Looking at the links you sent I'm not clear how it is related.
And naming it "key voting pools" seems unrelated to why we are proposing
this scheme. I'll need more than naked links to understand (I'm not saying
it isn't related, I'm just not seeing the connection)
-Alan
Sent from my overpriced smartphone
On Sep 23, 2014 2:25 PM, "Vitalik Buterin" <v@buterin•com> wrote:
> Have you looked at how Coinvault does it? They have a similar setup, but
> sort the pubkeys at each address.
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, <
> bitcoin-development-request@lists•sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
>> bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> bitcoin-development-request@lists•sourceforge.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> bitcoin-development-owner@lists•sourceforge.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Proposal: "No-Collision" mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
>> (Justus Ranvier)
>> 2. Re: Proposal: "No-Collision" mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
>> (Alan Reiner)
>> 3. Re: Proposal: "No-Collision" mode for Multisig BIP32 Wallets
>> (Justus Ranvier)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:37:20 +0000
>> From: Justus Ranvier <justus@monetas•net>
>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: "No-Collision" mode for
>> Multisig BIP32 Wallets
>> To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> Message-ID: <5421A1C0.6080605@monetas•net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 09/23/2014 04:16 PM, Alan Reiner wrote:
>> > P.S. -- "No-Collision Mode" is not a great name. Happy to take
>> > suggestions for changing it.
>>
>> I'd call it a "voting pool wallet", since that was the original
>> application for this arrangement.
>>
>> Would be nice if you'd at least mention our work, since we did share
>> it with you back in January and have been publicly documenting it ever
>> since.
>>
>> Or does the fact that we're implementing it in btcwallet mean what
>> we're working on is unmentionable here?
>>
>> - --
>> Justus Ranvier | Monetas <http://monetas.net/>
>> <mailto:justus@monetas•net> | Public key ID : C3F7BB2638450DB5
>> | BM-2cTepVtZ6AyJAs2Y8LpcvZB8KbdaWLwKqc
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUIaHAAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ21nwoH/3MYi9JibblZYmSOvCT1vJrN
>> Ih+Q2WNumIAI+Y9bh4bBgLuhnG5lXyHedhYEUW+mfuwGiX+92Uc47nwaWED2/Lte
>> 4Zk/KZnwLifdWCgKLdGpW6mzksRiOaVyU4vV5JchVOrGZZ2zYNIq+NcChtCph7Y5
>> L202ReAG+1dfSpp4rFckuv7pTVjNcrq89UN1tJFDNQdxzIRd7bwoeCuvyFurZagB
>> 88bNiOl0BI3e090WC+CWmbC6BfqJiicn/d0gp/agW01wy7CVbLypPPTKmYqt3+54
>> msLUgaRHcbjuyKqu8HMHpYtgYVSNFg2q+U4SgmEepzPAkQ97khbduqA6i1B0ULM=
>> =t/xp
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: 0x38450DB5.asc
>> Type: application/pgp-keys
>> Size: 14046 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:48:34 -0400
>> From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com>
>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: "No-Collision" mode for
>> Multisig BIP32 Wallets
>> To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> Message-ID: <5421A462.6030205@gmail•com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/23/2014 12:37 PM, Justus Ranvier wrote:
>> > Would be nice if you'd at least mention our work, since we did share
>> > it with you back in January and have been publicly documenting it ever
>> > since.
>> >
>> > Or does the fact that we're implementing it in btcwallet mean what
>> > we're working on is unmentionable here?
>> >
>>
>> Please don't assume poor intentions or sneaky motives. I get a lot of
>> emails from a lot of people about a lot of things. Nine months ago was
>> an eternity in this world, and it can't be ruled out that I simply forgot.
>>
>> I have no problem giving credit where it is due, and I mentioned in my
>> first email that I wasn't sure if my stuff was original. Please
>> recap/link it here so that it can be part of this discussion.
>>
>> - -Alan
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>
>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUIaRiAAoJEBHe6b77WWmFcBgP/2IiQWda5diBIrd8MjbtYz/X
>> pF+B1zOipClil151pKN5h9f4CI75qwSBSG6pUS+QH1lCz97nr5AoVYV5SAaRzv0z
>> L9Bz0PiHJFHd4IRbfuFqlPZB8mw2TMD7QWJx/1U+WmpnYYOGsUeJn25psIVZSRTU
>> FTCsmYrA4cGZ4bZoUKI/eiXrHao8rm/zQ7QHKOMSFWZT57sNea67vlxPXKu+AkmK
>> nEYa4hD0kD7/R/TrNcmRmOlmbqCnyjICd/yp8Lj26CdHPv3PAvaxUwSX3VhWPbdc
>> UOiGeo+lXqRnBVpwMd+k7oFddwrc2k9ISRdUVsU86z3JdAXKl/dLS5UoOtfC1JA9
>> m90TuRtq4QuuzjLF3brI9FthuHNowA//qaVfjo/AYgsKy15td9UBtFbt4E9w263M
>> NiFEmFkXfbE1JmIvmPG3AQEEdQ1/nmWiN5UcLrBfauEHMDQ1fGd89A8IBpus7bWM
>> kYXboW3E9RBN4lB6OdyYU4AuH0YQhZodmry4iElMPox/tclmNiaeqDR8UYhD5BMd
>> eQN9zAALyR1IY1167Ki/abVfWVf5jF7b0Eeu/wAfwcble3sCFrvWWAwzHjNi3GjY
>> gNfy1eDTbwLj2M63QbtB+YqzQBZx3+SY4euGKYQ1s1CVV9ibAFI52oxeMhwzVOWF
>> ofeDK5BPL8H+5L3tk+1o
>> =tX2n
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:07:58 +0000
>> From: Justus Ranvier <justus@monetas•net>
>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: "No-Collision" mode for
>> Multisig BIP32 Wallets
>> To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> Message-ID: <5421A8EE.4060300@monetas•net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 09/23/2014 04:48 PM, Alan Reiner wrote:
>> > Please recap/link it here so that it can be part of this
>> > discussion.
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32736455/
>>
>> http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/Deposit_Address_(voting_pools)
>>
>> Currently being implemented here:
>>
>> https://github.com/monetas/btcwallet/commits/vp
>>
>> - --
>>
>> Really what's so annoying is how the BIP numbering process is handled in
>> such a way that proposals can be silently pigeonholed.
>>
>> Especially so in the case of an *informational* BIP which requires no
>> action on anyone's part (except for not using the same BIP43 purpose
>> code).
>>
>> We resolved this by changing the naming scheme for our proposals, and
>> their associated purpose codes, to not rely on centrally-allocated
>> numbers.
>>
>> https://github.com/Open-Transactions/rfc/tree/master/bips
>>
>> - --
>> Justus Ranvier | Monetas <http://monetas.net/>
>> <mailto:justus@monetas•net> | Public key ID : C3F7BB2638450DB5
>> | BM-2cTepVtZ6AyJAs2Y8LpcvZB8KbdaWLwKqc
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUIajuAAoJEMP3uyY4RQ215dQH/1GNOmZd19/e2Ys7MNFx0gqz
>> rDmTFBylU3lhJrMY4CDd4Duq5+2U7HgaovqgX8UqxquHWLQUwEzZLqdEPCifLg0c
>> d/u90cRlClFAaOxPh4HV2/3aZoS2R27N+ZjOfziW7RZySBP/2fMt4/ra+SPbkcAQ
>> oeplYgqMRDqW52C/o2zm4y4yb0TJPS+lzSNM+JfxHSPRyY55l0KzLJfUNz1RSOze
>> A8UAwdsLiJROKPKiSrQcqFOejPV7uqSPh10ukm/AI0k8TbvX8ffGQ083394M9IuE
>> DB/1eyeLQVP5+lQMWNrTHk3BQ75XBEDJoSukaRENcqxtHV2m1JzTWoS2CQBXi2M=
>> =TwI3
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: 0x38450DB5.asc
>> Type: application/pgp-keys
>> Size: 14046 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
>> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
>> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
>> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>> End of Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 40, Issue 9
>> **************************************************
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13303 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread