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 4F3471053 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:17:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E887A4 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:17:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so44800030wic.1 for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:17:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zxJz41mKw1yBvl5fAdzKZBHHCialfIlItA0icWcDZAA=; b=XGIoiRsh5CRNM8Nrc2SV3ey8g3EX240MkU6/aGeBguvfB1HRBwNSDrRLwBYdpPaCsw FVIyD5qdNeHPLOMocCOlIkU7+QuYCFMIa0hjcX5c0ktEprraiRcIpofyJI8g56P8blEQ 2SQOTMjx5hf2uRem84V8GkACHMSWMmtnSOXwzf09fZQ5+Xycox8ZCtqoGaS3DEVLZCgB 7oZYTRwIaAmQuu7JDX+u2B4voizShiyZs4sq2syBXWxxUZcE6pYJ3ota4UujfegVu3wu MTtsJBGvd0iV4LUhXF8YvYotjjqA5P34bHtJCwgYS6ZVmwDgcGU7oe0CEZbR+ljxN0lg JnBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVL6fdKLbQLCzCKOZPItkpRB3hM/WPhPwiiDz++LF3N8jbPZfte5fbCthn5QCX19uhTCX6 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.182.7 with SMTP id ea7mr16477922wic.58.1441451872900; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 04:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 04:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 04:17:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> References: <201509040006.06430.luke@dashjr.org> <55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:17:52 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Justus Ranvier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6048d8d86ad1051efe2af5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43 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: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:17:58 -0000 --047d7b6048d8d86ad1051efe2af5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non- > > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository: > > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/ > > What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to > that company in particular? > > BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of > purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a > separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit. The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_coin_types It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to maintain competing registries. Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a registry in the first place. > -- > Justus Ranvier > Open Bitcoin Privacy Project > http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/ > justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org > E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --047d7b6048d8d86ad1051efe2af5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu= xfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer no= n-
> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
>
> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management = to
> that company in particular?
>
> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of<= br> > purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible bene= fit.
The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is no= t:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/m= aster/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_coin_types

It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single comp= any instead of having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like nam= ecoin?) to maintain competing registries.

Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated= from the chain ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the= need for a registry in the first place.

> --
> Justus Ranvier
> Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
> http://www.openb= itcoinprivacyproject.org/
> justus@openbit= coinprivacyproject.org
> E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--047d7b6048d8d86ad1051efe2af5--