From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6DD4E35 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:14:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 599D5126 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id u206so16800976wme.1 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:14:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=avmw4oaSfgNJi4wYZ6OcQT69vtZ9vArIjdV/bfvB5uk=; b=GNXBIwvoMYudJNcTosjX/69mCIS+/1hgACFA9rVYPTX+Cjxhz3hsyyTaBrhlIZRLPj GFB435dpuOPJIeSq3yqgKlY/YaMwNsrEqM6zI+NXdy9Sum3thvrmeqavhgOIKTL3iIWX nbb8NDXskPtXfTlrgbQtVNxqqkaG3v1bsppO5Qq/7mwMru/qnCoDDqzc6JOFM2GbLc20 XtXttPYTRIl6i/F0S7A1ZbpJ3u5e97FH9d964NBzuhjwPBOztotf/G1L71ayIVB9pGrX Vnm0AWnFvR7XpWp3Lbi7m1+eidLBDFY+Ix15mCYyPi+iWqofqbwN9C6V1Y6GwElO0yrr pZQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=avmw4oaSfgNJi4wYZ6OcQT69vtZ9vArIjdV/bfvB5uk=; b=Q6ICctVkVDKUqOdCkc1g8Eg4fAjKrk0aoQ8+8ue0APKavp17+89qShG6klOOUYA31B w3wPqqNEZzd2UoieF2x5i+WYmGD+EnfBiBfdEz506qmFgB/m6WRZ9xg9Dkd+H1EkenyK XWM7PwEI7iqrd3FYWQg7Lytj3irc6S/xzBA2U9uv0hwowo0dDcj+4SHzc1I8DOOoB00J QImx6zmI7WxVtZGJtFuSKtRmhTpuD9aXBtgS6KEYSzmkNcaTB/jZCtJw5NwMRzApfj7g RvtkjcQEdmdNoBJLYl5m3PsrGyMsCuaY3kqJyCrDOYrCgh7caTHNoKEMhtesnAIhuKki ddWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVxW6xYIabdY6BjFehV2ROG75s4UshmHhv7IfZHgYYMCrx6fIap0Vybi9T1UPgxwA== X-Received: by 10.194.176.129 with SMTP id ci1mr18766919wjc.166.1461316486812; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.34.0.144] (nat-0-15.lam.cz. [80.92.242.254]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r123sm2328389wmg.20.2016.04.22.02.14.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT) To: Eric Lombrozo , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <5717AF19.1030102@gmail.com> From: Jochen Hoenicke X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5719EB7E.5000203@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:14:38 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:14:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to update BIP-32 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:14:49 -0000 Am 21.04.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Eric Lombrozo: > In practice the probability of this case triggering is on the order of > 2^-128 or something astronomically tiny. I've been using BIP32 for a few > years already as have many others...I don't think we've ever had to > handle this case. Justifiably, many app developers feel like the > additional complexity of properly handling this case is not worth the > effort. > > Having said that, if the handling of this case is simple to implement > and easy to isolate in the program flow, I am in favor of doing > something along the lines of what you propose. > Yes, the idea is to handle the problem in the library so that app developers don't have to handle the case of missing addresses or just ignore the problem. It also doesn't add much complexity to the library as the current implementations already test for invalid keys. The library would then just retry instead of returning an error (that most app developers would then ignore). Jochen