Re: [Bitcoin-development] cryptographic review requested

[Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>]

On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, Mem Wallet wrote:
> communication. To address gmaxwell's criticism, I'd like to also
> follow up with a proposed change to BIP44, such that a structured
> wallet would also include a series of identity keys, both addresses
> which will be used for signing, and public keys which would be used
> as destinations for encrypted messages.

I don't know what criticism it was, but I feel that another BIP than
BIP44 should be created to describe which HD paths should be used for ECIES.

> If anyone is familiar with ECIES and would be interested, there is a
> working implementation at http://memwallet.info/btcmssgs.html,
> which also includes this whitepaper:

That looks great! I already implemented Electrum's way of ECIES into
TREZOR firmware, but yours version seems much more complete, so I am
inclined to throw it away and use your implementation.

Have you thought about pushing this as a new BIP (different one than I
mention above)? I think it's important to have it reviewed and
standardized ASAP.

-- 
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak <stick@gk2.sk>