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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Xggbb-0002nf-CP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:04:35 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XggbY-0007PO-30 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:04:35 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id bs8so2092857wib.3 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:04:25 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=l7aC6zj0e4ykZv9Q7OTlihMymoaHa6uZ4JRS2RjGWl0=; b=hLy8jLPCBozZzsKQZPi7fxIOZvetCVGyWuhfmTRwK2Npd9JI6AYVa/hoPb8UczGAUq +TRlLC0zZuyRTEiOXEMBz/0bw7ecX10wOzR+jRrFk0U7V0J7r2okIZIAUFVLhx1hGJet eLhtOdwOLbeedjtjA2k+Z+jh5Wbqyo0cMfb8BW6H1UcKmbAt8SZ2rzN86G1ZBx3WMY86 456Nv9LpmR811Ih6DJN6kvB6UizhtYwh3RopNClSz2mNGm5upVJLKuSI/GWvtyKQsDJ3 G5EINRQVMzQV8yvW1mN28xAHoIxS91HtgLVsIItDZsaMMbP/R7lOmCC2uPKuVCtke0GG iSIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoRS9lTVS7oFuGY+toMVL+K7xS8WGn1PvDX19hIQRGmnySc66AjtoSdrq3SQ5THhtY0dhi X-Received: by 10.194.184.12 with SMTP id eq12mr47424041wjc.100.1413924982188; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tetra.site ([185.68.216.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l10sm101590wif.20.2014.10.21.13.56.19 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5446C872.7050302@gk2.sk> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:56:18 +0200 From: Pavol Rusnak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mem Wallet , bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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: 1XggbY-0007PO-30 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] cryptographic review requested 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: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:04:35 -0000 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