From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XXLJh-0002Pk-Qa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:31:29 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.46; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f46.google.com ([209.85.192.46]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XXLJg-0005IY-LX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:31:29 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id q108so8559492qgd.33 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.21.177 with SMTP id 46mr14411748qgl.90.1411698683053; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-69-143-221-64.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [69.143.221.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t2sm3618521qaj.47.2014.09.25.19.31.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5424CFF3.50404@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:31:15 -0400 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <53F38542.2000704@monetas.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070004030409000605030709" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XXLJg-0005IY-LX Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP43 Purpose code for voting pool HD wallets 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: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:31:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070004030409000605030709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm in favor of BIP43. Adding a "Purpose" node can be used as an identifier for what kind of tree is in the wallet file we're reading. I can envision a few different, common tree structures. Perhaps using a non-hardened first-layer derivation (we have clients who want this). Similarly, my proposal for a "No-collision mode" for multisig BIP32 trees is another variant that might get some traction but not everyone will use it.=20 These things could be "supported" by simply changing the BIP43 "Purpose" index and wallet software could be designed to recognize and react to the Purpose node for any number of different tree structures, and ignore any trees that it doesn't recognize (or maybe be able to view the balance across all the leaves of the tree but not expand it) We have clients with special use-cases (complex multi-layer trees) that are unlikely to be recycled across users. In such cases we might just use a "random" Purpose that is recognized by their system, and know that other software won't mess with it. Though it would be better if that field was encoded in the root seed, instead. Nonetheless, putting that extra layer between the root and the "important" tree nodes provides flexibility to BIP32 as a whole. -Alan On 09/25/2014 09:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Justus Ranvier w= rote: >> Two draft information BIPs are attached. > I've pinged some people privately but also pinging the list=E2=80=A6 no= > commentary on this proposal? > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer > Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Report= s > 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=3D154622311&iu=3D/4140/os= tg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --------------070004030409000605030709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm in favor of BIP43.

Adding a "Purpose" node can be used as an identifier for what kind of tree is in the wallet file we're reading.   I can envision a few different, common tree structures.  Perhaps using a non-hardened first-layer derivation (we have clients who want this).  Similarly, my proposal for a "No-collision mode" for multisig BIP32 trees is another variant that might get some traction but not everyone will use it.  These things could be "supported" by simply changing the BIP43 "Purpose" index and wallet software could be designed to recognize and react to the Purpose node for any number of different tree structures, and ignore any trees that it doesn't recognize (or maybe be able to view the balance across all the leaves of the tree but not expand it)

We have clients with special use-cases (complex multi-layer trees) that are unlikely to be recycled across users.  In such cases we might just use a "random" Purpose that is recognized by their system, and know that other software won't mess with it.  Though it would be better if that field was encoded in the root seed, instead.

Nonetheless, putting that extra layer between the root and the "important" tree nodes provides flexibility to BIP32 as a whole.
-Alan


On 09/25/2014 09:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Justus Ranvier <justus@monetas.net> wrote:

Two draft information BIPs are attached.

I've pinged some people privately but also pinging the list… no
commentary on this proposal?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

--------------070004030409000605030709--