From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7739AC001A for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F8083579 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:03:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=numberall.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2stS3Pf4KKeU for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:03:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:00 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.numberall.com (mail.numberall.com [64.222.170.42]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B721801D9 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:03:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.numberall.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C696A2B62FDF; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.numberall.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.numberall.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id SMq0v0KDsGK7; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.numberall.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A2A2B6305D; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.numberall.com C8A2A2B6305D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=numberall.com; s=570D8D16-B255-11E4-8E05-DB4A5F2ECC60; t=1625421388; bh=mIw/K1NrmumUy2excjoxo8mB2sgz10rwux4R/IDkriA=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=X+DOvBwa6ZXLEbsc5D+iOFzEABXzGrumJWZnMWhkRSUvDj620igf5saEAPdIcmB1m xn3Y/04sP+9/aK+vEk2Dnd5ZLls9ZnSwMAACSWsbCd0YitvqvbFxy8iG7nxamPjqQo 9WdN7QVb24tk5Ck2yrKs5T1tflqCNTTaMAB6V/pA= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at numberall.com Received: from mail.numberall.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.numberall.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id YP5mRbWoPenC; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.numberall.com (mail.numberall.com [10.1.1.202]) by mail.numberall.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACF22B63036; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2021 13:56:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Bayerdorffer To: Craig Raw , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <1628014947.8985.1625421388348.JavaMail.zimbra@numberall.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1eb7b635-094c-a583-7dc0-21cea58ed1fb@achow101.com> <20210703032405.j3mru5rbag5sbfil@ganymede> <20210703100540.pr3nsgjhox26hhic@ganymede> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_f38c74c7-acf0-4990-af5e-06ba20506bea" X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4059 (ZimbraWebClient - FF89 (Win)/8.8.15_GA_4059) Thread-Topic: BIP Proposals for Output Script Descriptors Thread-Index: 0uY5oOa3It5Gk/m9Ap9pjwkCnQ0yOg== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:43:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposals for Output Script Descriptors X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:03:32 -0000 --=_f38c74c7-acf0-4990-af5e-06ba20506bea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I just wanted to put my two cents in, on the metal backup aspect. We make the Bitcoin Recovery Tag for a similar purpose. We use a fixed font, so using ' (apostrophe) or H/h are both acceptable. Most metal stamping tools are fixed width fonts. You can see a picture here... [ https://cyphersafe.io/product/bitcoin-recovery-tag/ | https://cyphersafe.io/product/bitcoin-recovery-tag/ ] Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Bayerdorffer, VP danielb@numberall.com Numberall Stamp & Tool Co., Inc. www.numberall.com Reuleaux Models www.reuleauxmodels.com CypherSafe www.cyphersafe.io PO BOX 187, Sangerville, ME 04479 USA TEL: 207-876-3541 FAX: 207-876-3566 From: "Craig Raw via bitcoin-dev" To: "David A. Harding" Cc: "Bitcoin Protocol Discussion" Sent: Saturday, July 3, 2021 10:00:51 AM Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposals for Output Script Descriptors It's a consideration, not a serious concern. When I made the point around alphanumeric characters being similar to the path numbers, I was actually thinking of the output descriptor appearing in a fixed character width font, which I prefer as more appropriate for displaying hexidecimal values. In this case, the apostrophe provides more whitespace which makes the path easier to parse visually. It's difficult to reduce this to a mathematical argument, as is true for many UX considerations. Your example in fixed width here: [ https://gist.github.com/craigraw/fc98b9031a7e01e1bc5d75a77bdb72e5 | https://gist.github.com/craigraw/fc98b9031a7e01e1bc5d75a77bdb72e5 ] That said you make good arguments around the shell quoting and stamps for metal backups, and therefore I agree it is preferable to use the lowercase "h". Thanks for the detailed reply. Craig On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 12:11 PM David A. Harding < [ mailto:dave@dtrt.org | dave@dtrt.org ] > wrote: On Sat, Jul 03, 2021 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Craig Raw wrote: > There is a downside to using "h"/"H" from a UX perspective - taking up more > space Is this a serious concern of yours? An apostrophe is 1/2 en; an "h" is 1 en; the following descriptor contains three hardened derivations in 149 characters; assuming the average non-'/h character width is 1.5 en, the difference between 207 en and 208.5 en is barely more than half a percent. pkh([d34db33f/44h/0h/0h]xpub6ERApfZwUNrhLCkDtcHTcxd75RbzS1ed54G1LkBUHQVHQKqhMkhgbmJbZRkrgZw4koxb5JaHWkY4ALHY2grBGRjaDMzQLcgJvLJuZZvRcEL/1/*)#ml40v0wf Here's a direct visual comparison: [ https://gist.github.com/harding/2fbbf2bfdce04c3e4110082f03ae3c80 | https://gist.github.com/harding/2fbbf2bfdce04c3e4110082f03ae3c80 ] > appearing as alphanumeric characters similar to the path numbers First, I think you'd have to be using an awful font to confuse "h" with any arabic numeral. Second, avoiding transcription errors is exactly why descriptors now have checksums. > they make derivation paths and descriptors more difficult to read. The example descriptor pasted above looks equally (un)readable to me whether it uses ' or h. > Also, although not as important, less efficient when making metal > backups. I think many metal backup schemes are using stamps or punch grids that are fixed-width in nature, so there's no difference either way. (And you can argue that h is better since it's part of both the base58check and bech32 character sets, so you already need a stamp or a grid row for it---but ' is otherwise unused, so a stamp or grid row for it would be special). But even if people are manually etching descriptors into metal, we're back to the original point where we're looking at something like a 0.7% difference in "efficiency". By comparison, the Bitcoin Core issue I cited in my earlier post contains several examples of actual users needing technical support because they tried to use '-containing descriptors in a bourne-style shell. (And I've personally lost time to that class of problems.) In the worst case, a shell-quoting accident can cause loss of money by sending bitcoins to the descriptor for a key your hardware signing device won't sign for. I think these problems are much more serious than using a tiny bit of extra space in a GUI or on a physical backup medium. -Dave _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --=_f38c74c7-acf0-4990-af5e-06ba20506bea Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
I just wanted to put my two cents in, on t= he metal backup aspect. We make the Bitcoin Recovery Tag for a similar purp= ose. We use a fixed font, so using ' (apostrophe) or H/h are both acceptabl= e. Most metal stamping tools are fixed width fonts.

You can see a picture here.= ..

<= div>Thanks,
Daniel

--
Daniel Baye= rdorffer, VP danielb@numberall.com
Numberall Stamp & Tool Co., Inc.= www.numberall.com
Reuleaux Models  www.reuleauxmodels.com
Cyph= erSafe  www.cyphersafe.io
PO BOX 187, Sangerville, ME 04479 USA TEL: 207-876-3541 FAX: 207-876-3566

From: "C= raig Raw via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
= To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
Cc: "Bitcoin = Protocol Discussion" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Se= nt: Saturday, July 3, 2021 10:00:51 AM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-= dev] BIP Proposals for Output Script Descriptors

It's a consideration, n= ot a serious concern.
When I made the point around alphanumeric cha= racters being similar to the path numbers, I was actually thinking of the o= utput descriptor appearing in a fixed character width font, which I pr= efer as more appropriate for displaying hexidecimal values. In th= is case, the apostrophe provides more whitespace which makes the path = easier to parse visually. It's difficult to reduce this to a mathematical a= rgument, as is true for many UX considerations. Your example in fixed width= here: https= ://gist.github.com/craigraw/fc98b9031a7e01e1bc5d75a77bdb72e5

That said you make good arguments around the s= hell quoting and stamps for metal backups, and therefore I agree it is pref= erable to use the lowercase "h". Thanks for the detailed reply.

Craig

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 12:11 PM David A. Harding <dave@dtrt.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 03, 2021 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Craig R= aw wrote:
> There is a downside to using "h"/"H" from a UX perspective - taking up= more
> space

Is this a serious concern of yours?  An apostrophe is 1/2 en; an "h" i= s
1 en; the following descriptor contains three hardened derivations in 149 characters; assuming the average non-'/h character width is 1.5 en, the
difference between 207 en and 208.5 en is barely more than half a
percent.

    pkh([d34db33f/44h/0h/0h]xpub6ERApfZwUNrhLCkDtcHTcxd75RbzS1ed5= 4G1LkBUHQVHQKqhMkhgbmJbZRkrgZw4koxb5JaHWkY4ALHY2grBGRjaDMzQLcgJvLJuZZvRcEL/= 1/*)#ml40v0wf

Here's a direct visual comparison: https://gist.github.com/harding/2fbbf2bfdce04c3= e4110082f03ae3c80

> appearing as alphanumeric characters similar to the path numbers

First, I think you'd have to be using an awful font to confuse "h" with
any arabic numeral.  Second, avoiding transcription errors is exactly<= br> why descriptors now have checksums.

> they make derivation paths and descriptors more difficult to read.

The example descriptor pasted above looks equally (un)readable to me
whether it uses ' or h.

> Also, although not as important, less efficient when making metal
> backups.

I think many metal backup schemes are using stamps or punch grids that
are fixed-width in nature, so there's no difference either way.  (And<= br> you can argue that h is better since it's part of both the base58check
and bech32 character sets, so you already need a stamp or a grid row for it---but ' is otherwise unused, so a stamp or grid row for it would be
special).

But even if people are manually etching descriptors into metal, we're
back to the original point where we're looking at something like a 0.7%
difference in "efficiency".

By comparison, the Bitcoin Core issue I cited in my earlier post
contains several examples of actual users needing technical support
because they tried to use '-containing descriptors in a bourne-style
shell.  (And I've personally lost time to that class of problems.)&nbs= p; In
the worst case, a shell-quoting accident can cause loss of money by
sending bitcoins to the descriptor for a key your hardware signing
device won't sign for.  I think these problems are much more serious than using a tiny bit of extra space in a GUI or on a physical backup
medium.

-Dave

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing = list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--=_f38c74c7-acf0-4990-af5e-06ba20506bea--