From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WNpOO-0007yr-3f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:04:44 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ea0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WNpOM-0000f3-7t for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:04:44 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f169.google.com with SMTP id h14so70927eaj.14 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:04:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xs7m41okW+eIDrCIoNCWe69b3U2Tv54IrhkG+PaNDYg=; b=IIwyOzG41FdfnoStnwIUXgRPrwqGlH4G/v4CvAtiSv02I7/FB/Sfp+mubFr0b7ZfHa DnmuikBZmFgFJJSP1HhBEth6z+cHIBM892Akzd9GjL6s8QvSU+N0h/waQL77Ujl5TlgH Sw1Mi0YSqeab1Ppp2DW+klFUdg5Bjju/S9e8hxf87T2wgHSIN/MvKOC/jUI/6g0KjwxH xllBlB355mDPC8LayeiLMYAhH4jP0EfQO6ji+tlSZIINO8oy+1XJ5K5WcjvBhHTYoSHH ca94COwtD4hooKJ5fHCUAfaxs5pg3uuBf/HlkKfqj+P1VwehYRt3XFI8G7IMFN6WZ7CR BBYg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPDqJ1GL+SFOY621t31srqBb1GacmY4TYB42wRqVYSKeKsxUynk15yEXZFqRQQecGT4L5Y X-Received: by 10.14.111.201 with SMTP id w49mr5162354eeg.92.1394654675916; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tetra.site (nat-0-15.lam.cz. [80.92.242.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f45sm73660391eeg.5.2014.03.12.13.04.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5320BDD1.50001@gk2.sk> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:04:33 +0100 From: Pavol Rusnak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Yager References: <44fcb02b-3784-45a6-816a-312c78d940cd@me.com> <5320B7F1.8060701@gk2.sk> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1WNpOM-0000f3-7t Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Proposal: Base58 encoded HD Wallet root key with optional encryption X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:04:44 -0000 On 03/12/2014 08:55 PM, William Yager wrote: > The proposed BIP uses a bloom filter, so it has both plausible deniability *and > *typo checking. The bloom filter is optimized for two elements and will > catch something like 99.9975% of typos, despite allowing two different > passwords. Ok, I see. So the spec allows one real and one fake password. That is something I don't consider plausible deniability. I am not saying that this solution is wrong, I find it quite interesting, but it's not plausible deniability. ;-) >> I'm afraid one would end up with code generated in one client that is >> unusable in a different client, because the client's developer thought >> that using fancier algorithm instead of the proposed ones was a good idea. >> >> > This is clearly in violation of the spec. Ah, I misunderstood. I thought that outsourcing the KDF means allowing the 3rd party to use any KDF instead of the specified ones. What would be the reason to outsource if this is not possible, anyway? -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol Rusnak