From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WcqTz-0006O8-VR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:16:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.51; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WcqTw-0004zS-I5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:16:35 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id pv20so386594lab.10 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:16:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.116.43 with SMTP id jt11mr287610lab.41.1398233785642; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:16:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <621AAD7D-FDC0-4C3C-B810-8C1F0B088586@bitsofproof.com> References: <1927948.OEZHQcsQ9n@crushinator> <2025496.b5Y3n7qx8B@crushinator> <1582E990-4E14-4EF7-9C9C-AA505B815104@bitsofproof.com> <53568B87.8040009@monetize.io> <11528A13-5D66-4D2B-BEE0-1C26F9987BC8@bitsofproof.com> <621AAD7D-FDC0-4C3C-B810-8C1F0B088586@bitsofproof.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:16:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1WcqTw-0004zS-I5 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:16:36 -0000 On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > So you agree, that SSS should not contain specific flag for testnet? > > Or for that matter not even BIP32 needs them since it is not an address to > send to. I think the convention we have so far is that addresses and address relate thing we share normally contain an opaque 'version' identifier which we use to identify the purpose for the data (E.g. network meaning, etc.) and I think its a generally reasonable custom.