From: "BitPLATES (Chris)" <bitplates@marketnetworks.co.uk>
To: "Chris D'Costa" <chrisjdcosta@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal for an Informational BIP
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 09:48:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAvTZ64H3jQJ9F-Hxbc1=0+pN8p=wGEEcMokpoJCFJSVDjqzKA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC0TF=m+Cg_LKz0vSuTb-xg6qY1GbeGMjaXa0bgoiLqtCbMikQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7885 bytes --]
Hi Chris,
Thank you for your thoughts.
Unfortunately, your analysis is incorrect.
This is a non-destructive adaptation of the BIP39 standard, and is
certainly not "rolling your own security".
The 'quantum' passphrase is relying on the well established security of the
existing BIP39 standard.
There are 2048 possible words that can be chosen from the BIP39 word list.
Therefore, to derive a seed from a string of 24 BIP39 words, is exactly the
same as deriving a seed from the full 24 words:
2048 to the power of 23 combinations of security (not the power of 24
because of the checksum), or 10 to the power of 76 combinations.
If you created your own combinations of words to make up a passphrase, this
same degree of security would require 15 random words from the English
dictionary (assuming 100,000 English words):
100,000 to the power of 15 = 10 to the power of 75 combinations.
The other problem with this, is that you could not plausibly deny that it
was a passphrase, whereas, using a 'quantum' passphrase allows you to
backup your passphrase disguised as a 24 seed mnemonic.
I hope this alleviates your concerns.
All the best,
Chris
On Tue, 11 May 2021, 09:12 Chris D'Costa, <chrisjdcosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the biggest problem you have with this proposal is "rolling your
> own security".
>
> Are you aware that the dictionary is designed such that the first four
> letters are unique to each word? Taking those four letters and
> concatenating them to a string basically means that I can derive your seed
> from your supposedly secure "quantum" passphrase. It does not add to the
> security - if anything it makes it worse. It would be orders of magnitude
> worse than using a random password and encryption as most wallets have been
> using for years.
>
> C
>
> On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 17:21, BitPLATES® (Chris) via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to submit an idea for review, as a potential informational BIP
>> (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal), describing an optional method of producing
>> a BIP39 passphrase, using only BIP39 'mnemonic' seed words.
>>
>> The idea specifically refers to a method of introducing two-factor
>> authentication, to protect a Bitcoin wallet using only 24 seed words, and
>> therefore, providing plausible deniability about the existence of this
>> separate 2nd layer passphrase.
>>
>> I've suggested the name 'quantum' passphrase to be used casually as a
>> unique identifier.
>>
>> The data stored within a 'quantum' passphrase, is simultaneously the
>> minimum required data for reproducing a BIP39-compatible 24-word seed
>> mnemonic... hence, the name 'quantum' seems fitting, to reflect the
>> multiple simultaneous states of data.
>>
>> Abstract...
>>
>> This improvement proposal describes the use of twenty four, newly
>> generated BIP39 seed words, to produce a '25th-word' BIP39-compatible
>> 'quantum' passphrase.
>>
>> Two-factor authentication (2FA) or (2 of 2 multi-signature) can be
>> implemented with a two-wallet setup:
>>
>> The 1st Bitcoin wallet is protected by the seed words of the 2nd Bitcoin
>> wallet; inversely, the 2nd Bitcoin wallet is protected by the seed words of
>> the 1st Bitcoin wallet.
>>
>> The 'quantum' passphrase offers an exponential increase in the level of
>> protection, as that offered by the original BIP39 mnemonic seed words
>> (≈2048^23 possible combinations).
>>
>> ie. A Bitcoin wallet with a 2nd layer 'quantum'passphrase is protected by
>> 2048^23 to the power of 2048^23 possible combinations.
>>
>> With existing computer capabilities, this level of protection is far
>> greater than required; however, this does provide a sufficient level of
>> protection for each separate layer of a two-factor Bitcoin wallet, should
>> any one layer be accidentally exposed.
>>
>> This method of passphrase generation, consists of two parts:
>>
>> 1st - generating the BIP39 mnemonic seed words, using a BIP39-compatible
>> hardware wallet.
>>
>> 2nd - Converting these seed words into the 'quantum' passphrase,
>> following four simple rules, which most importantly, do not destroy the
>> integrity of the initial data.
>>
>> Motivation...
>>
>> The well established practice of preserving up to 24 seed words for the
>> purpose of reproduction of a Bitcoin wallet, suffers from a major flaw...
>> Exposure of these mnemonic seed words can cause catastrophic loss of funds
>> without adequate multi-factor protection.
>>
>> Whilst it is recognised that a number of multi-factor solutions are
>> available (including the standard BIP39 passphrase, and hardware wallet
>> multi-signature functionality), this proposal aims to provide an extremely
>> safe and secure 'low-tech' option, that requires minimal (non-destructive)
>> adjustments to the seed words.
>>
>> Furthermore, the 'quantum' passphrase offers a number advantages over the
>> existing methods of multi-factor protection:
>>
>> Firstly, this method of creating a passphrase leaves no evidence of its
>> existence on any backup devices, providing plausible deniability in case of
>> coercion.
>>
>> This is because the passphrase is easily created from a genuine 24 seed
>> word mnemonic; therefore, the physical backup of the passphrase can be
>> disguised as a simple Bitcoin wallet on a metal backup plate.
>>
>> It presents a way of discouraging user-created words or sentences (also
>> known as 'brain-wallets'), which often provide a drastically reduced level
>> of passphrase security, unbeknown to many users.
>>
>> The large amount of data required to produce a 'quantum' passphrase (up
>> to 96 characters long), encourages the physical backup of the passphrase.
>>
>> Furthermore, the use of BIP39-only words provides a higher degree of
>> standardization, which can help to avoid potential mistakes made by
>> creating unnecessarily complicated combinations of letters, numbers and
>> symbols. Increased complication (disorderly, and non-human-friendly), does
>> not always equal increased complexity (orderly, and more human-friendly),
>> or increased security.
>>
>> As previously mentioned, a two-wallet configuration provides the user an
>> opportunity to safely split the two factors of protection (equivalent to a
>> 2 of 2 'multi-sig' setup).
>>
>> If a BIP39-compatible passphrase is created using a new set of 24 seed
>> words, it provides 76 degrees of extra complexity (ie. 1 with 76 zeros, or
>> 10⁷⁶ possible combinations of words).
>>
>> The strength of this 2nd factor solution, provides adequate
>> risk-management, when considering the production of multiple backup
>> devices, strategically stored in multiple geographical locations.
>>
>> Generating the 'quantum' passphrase...
>>
>> Following just four (non-destructive) BIP39-compatible rules, the 24 seed
>> words can also function as a 'quantum' passphrase:
>>
>> 1 . Only BIP39 words
>> (Standard list of 2048 English words - other languages should be
>> compatible)
>>
>> 2 . Only the first four letters of each word
>> (BIP39 words require only this data for reproduction)
>>
>> 3 . Only upper case letters
>> (All alphabet references use this standard format)
>>
>> 4 . No spaces between words
>> (Spaces represent an additional unit of data, that is not recorded)
>>
>> In essence, the 'quantum' passphrase is simply a single string of all 24
>> seed words, set out using the above rules.
>>
>> I welcome a productive technical discussion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris Johnston
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10842 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-11 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-08 15:21 [bitcoin-dev] Proposal for an Informational BIP BitPLATES® (Chris)
2021-05-09 7:24 ` Tobias Kaupat
2021-05-09 8:29 ` BitPLATES (Chris)
2021-05-09 22:53 ` Tobias Kaupat
2021-05-10 6:30 ` BitPLATES (Chris)
[not found] ` <CAC0TF=m+Cg_LKz0vSuTb-xg6qY1GbeGMjaXa0bgoiLqtCbMikQ@mail.gmail.com>
2021-05-11 8:48 ` BitPLATES (Chris) [this message]
[not found] ` <CAC0TF=meoUhRUMWmto8fxksse6G=66XJdxH8bvFfHENvVnS_+A@mail.gmail.com>
2021-05-11 17:45 ` BitPLATES (Chris)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAAvTZ64H3jQJ9F-Hxbc1=0+pN8p=wGEEcMokpoJCFJSVDjqzKA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=bitplates@marketnetworks.co.uk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=chrisjdcosta@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox