From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265C9C0001 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D5C40359 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:17:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=timruffing.de Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P4x9Z1M3jCKl for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:16:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:22 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050::465:201]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8096F40355 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [80.241.60.241]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2c0f4C4gzQjwb; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:08:34 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=timruffing.de; s=MBO0001; t=1616234912; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TFjPo92f9l7/bJ8y59q0YPy3iIr+U7ogfA5S44HbYwA=; b=lwbcuBnCcvuJv1oRn5k99LYvj8Nxp9Z/GNoqUPMN3KJW+6eTW10MfXcnM1tbKRY6OUkrtU 9jpKI3xZPot41yb5k7BjqG7YRfx1BIQDoy96Nfoc8IpSLEUCq9/lNW7RcmtYigph+z917V H5wtjw6wpQ1QD3iF/93r9MtDAf3D48xYBYVY7F0Y4OZIapoAuqZA4AN8buTFnG9FU+04NA XFfwksPZKpVDVK8FsWmAHJsN9Xf8GcUnPuiFjv8Acoon8SCLm9sJV15RUdI5cDic1wsE/H uPq7KkglMop/ZO5geN7609r+LjCQqG/eb4807RhrRmUeaXYds3DTWujVmQnHFg== Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.241]) by spamfilter04.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter04.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.122]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id GTWDZiBxrZL8; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:08:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <62853a4db45c8c6a483fcb3ca05e0bb58e06a643.camel@timruffing.de> From: Tim Ruffing To: vjudeu , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:08:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <125859088-3f93e6aca40d5c3244243540270cdb84@pmq7v.m5r2.onet> References: <125859088-3f93e6aca40d5c3244243540270cdb84@pmq7v.m5r2.onet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-SPAM-Probability: * X-Rspamd-Score: 0.16 / 15.00 / 15.00 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 82ED717E2 X-Rspamd-UID: 45ee1a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:50:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An alternative to BIP 32? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:17:01 -0000 On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 20:46 +0100, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > is it safe enough to implement it and use in practice? This may be harsh but I can assure you that a HD wallet scheme that can be specified in 3 lines (without even specifying what the security goals are) should not be assumed safe to implement. Tim