From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WceAP-0004L8-56 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:07:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.45; envelope-from=jan.moller@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com ([209.85.192.45]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WceAL-0006BP-O9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:07:33 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a108so5677880qge.18 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:07:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.114.130 with SMTP id e2mr49411722qaq.53.1398186444182; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.24.208 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:07:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <11528A13-5D66-4D2B-BEE0-1C26F9987BC8@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> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:07:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jan_M=C3=B8ller?= To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bea44cc55ff4c04f7a4a6a4 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (jan.moller[at]gmail.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.45 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WceAL-0006BP-O9 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 Reply-To: jan.moller@gmail.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:07:33 -0000 --047d7bea44cc55ff4c04f7a4a6a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Treating testnet differently is quite the norm, we have that in BIP 32, 38, 70, SIPA private keys (no BIP for that I guess), bitcoin addresses etc. At the same time none of them define values for alt coins as far as I recall. On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > I use several test chains while testing my software, the official test > net, a standalone net in house and even chains only created on the fly for > unit tests. I found no use of distinguishing serialization of keys while > using any of them. > > If you have some deep insights about why this is needed share it, as I am > not goint to guess your valuable thoughts. > > Regards, > > Tamas Blummer > http://bitsofproof.com > > On 22.04.2014, at 17:32, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > Testnet vs mainnet is quite a separate issue than bitcoin vs altcoin. > Unfortunately few of the alts ever figured this out. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform > Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software > Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready > Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform > http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --047d7bea44cc55ff4c04f7a4a6a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Treating testnet differently is quite the norm, we have th= at in BIP 32, 38, 70, SIPA private keys (no BIP for that I guess), bitcoin = addresses etc. At the same time none of them define values for alt coins as= far as I recall.


On Tue, Apr 2= 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
I use se= veral test chains while testing my software, the official test net, a stand= alone net in house and even chains only created on the fly for unit tests. = I found no use of distinguishing serialization of keys while using any of t= hem.

If you have some deep insights about why this is n= eeded share it, as I am not goint to guess your valuable thoughts.

Regards,

Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com



---------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
http://p.sf.n= et/sfu/ExoPlatform
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--047d7bea44cc55ff4c04f7a4a6a4--