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 51D3CCEF for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:54:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (mo.garage.hdemail.jp [46.51.242.127]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEEED477 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ip-10-217-1-36.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with SMTP id 3E9FD14C0B9 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:54:32 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) X-Received: from unknown (HELO mo.garage.hdemail.jp) (127.0.0.1) by 0 with SMTP; 10 Apr 2018 11:54:32 +0900 X-Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-ma-postfix) with ESMTP id 3583A4C079 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:54:32 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) Received: from gw13.oz.hdemail.jp (ip-10-122-70-202.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal [10.122.70.202]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with ESMTP id 3390914C0B9 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:54:32 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) X-Received: from mail-qt0-f200.google.com (lb06.oz.hdemail.jp [54.238.50.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw13.oz.hdemail.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43AF148C122 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:54:31 +0900 (JST) X-Received: by mail-qt0-f200.google.com with SMTP id i21so7356334qtp.10 for ; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=J4SiPx339T4A10Ruw+ikO4x/6Xd9u7H5N7yaeD83QoE=; b=dQNOHbOn9lBb6BGbfsKSlQ2q6MWNdJzJzvfymDKix4OKdii6aA74oN9Uy0oWmVlMAk FrCg7KdD54VbcLiuew4OEZ7d/awYPznfGh0dt6uSFNFKag0XUp9ahOeCc8gjNzt7tLxY hMki4+TvzC8O9J6/Ak8GLRC4uU4IX7zI0j3qBfjc1qkFl6aVnX65097aWIoEmsrR+hn8 863+IjEhrO8XfM9NkjLaPRcEtrL+RFzuvUkE7dvX/qRNGLE4Gg5dQF1/JXJvRUz7S5Fn 0ZmJ1/x+ZiztvC6u+qYi5XZvQ1VV868XoMzPM5dgXdb2K8ecd7mHysbhgxsReD8WSJPI 2TnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCrRVLEKpQw5NAk9EJEFruHpvGG7vXVaG/Ehs2bDlyrD9LcQNI/ xvE2uwEbH1NJqHHGYiPEzJkb+YG0hw9n+BrmpKTxIqw7186tI8IA42gZqHMRcyBac1RC9CsPq/G BnGYD12RiVJiPGbxTA2v5sYWEaX5zcchOFB3ze+Xf4uAzxWr4DIVc0045u1yMVOVvCLqUMa5yrt 7a3dt5ByBHTi8UYhhMnIDTxDZLEDf4Bo/OL4t2B+IXugN1JYJ5fXiOS03+3kDgQt384fmz7ujen 7FvoE1hfQmZPkrPlXV/iX+eRpN+ivDBgc5K2FKKfqDpUvrpn4VFJUUtR5KJb6mh2C1rg6X0lXRd wxrll5+6znswBnFhIY6kg/+2fSk= X-Received: by 10.233.221.2 with SMTP id r2mr51827392qkf.259.1523328870029; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:54:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+EiTf8tElTdrvOOY6xegD0aZi3LnDrjNkdk1s1xJB53UCR96xOOgXb0ZTlZ72beF+1p3F7lxgYMb/4PR51TZw= X-Received: by 10.233.221.2 with SMTP id r2mr51827373qkf.259.1523328869589; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:54:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.12.225.2 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:54:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <34198916-cde9-c84d-ca41-9feb8956bd80@electrum.org> <0dc0336b-d590-ffe9-8689-6ae06e98a39d@electrum.org> <0071EC0D-44D4-47D0-8211-2158B288CC19@friedenbach.org> From: Karl-Johan Alm Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:54:08 +0900 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] proposal: extend WIF format for segwit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 02:54:35 -0000 Hello, I made slight modification to the BIP, dropping the 0x80 jump to 0x10: https://github.com/kallewoof/bips/blob/bip-typed-wif/bip-extended-privkey.mediawiki I will make the corresponding changes to the reference implementation shortly. If there are no objections I would also like to request a BIP number. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Karl Johan Alm wrote: > I took the liberty of turning this into a BIP proposal -- the > formatted version can be seen here: > https://github.com/kallewoof/bips/blob/bip-typed-wif/bip-extended-privkey.mediawiki > > 
>   BIP: XXX
>   Layer: Applications
>   Title: Typed Private Keys
>   Author: Karl-Johan Alm 
>   Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>   Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-XXX
>   Status: Draft
>   Type: Standards Track
>   Created: 2018-04-04
>   License: CC0-1.0
>
> > == Abstract == > > An extension to the private key (WIF) format to specify what kind of > public key the private key corresponds to. > > == Motivation == > > There are several types of public keys which can all be associated > with a given private key: P2PKH (legacy 1... format), > P2SH-P2WPKH (SegWit public key inside P2SH), P2WPKH (bech32), etc. > > While private keys have a 1-byte suffix indicating whether the > corresponding public key is compressed (0x01) or not > (0x00), there is no way of knowing what kind of public > keys were associated with the private key. As a result, when importing > a private key, the wallet has to assume all kinds, and keep track of > each possible alternative. > > By extending the suffix, we can specify what kind of public key was > associated with the given private key. > > == Specification == > > Currently, private keys are stored as a uint256 (private key data) > followed by a uint8 (compressed flag). The latter is extended to > specify the public key types: > > {|class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" > |- > !Value > !Type > !Compr > !Clarification > |- > |0x00||P2PKH_UNCOMPRESSED||No||Uncompressed legacy public > key. Unknown public key format > |- > |0x01||P2PKH_COMPRESSED||Yes||Compressed legacy public > key. Unknown public key format > |- > |0x80||P2PKH||Yes||Compressed legacy public key. Legacy > public key format (1...) > |- > |0x81||P2WPKH||Yes||Bech32 format (native Segwit) > |- > |0x82||P2WPKH_P2SH||Yes||Segwit nested in BIP16 P2SH > (3...) > |- > |0x85||P2SH|| — ||Non-Segwit BIP16 P2SH (3...) > |- > |0x86||P2WSH|| — ||Native Segwit P2SH > |- > |0x87||P2WSH_P2SH|| — ||Native Segwit P2SH nested > in BIP16 P2SH > |} > > When a wallet imports a private key, it will have two outcomes: > > * the key is using one of the legacy types, in which case all types > must be accounted for > * the key is using one of the extended types, in which case the wallet > need only track the specific corresponding public key > > == Rationale == > > TODO > > == Compatibility == > > This proposal is not backwards compatible, in that software that does > not recognize the new types will not understand the compressed flag. > It would be trivial to change this, by keeping the 'uncompressed' > state as it is (0) and changing 'compressed' to be 'anything not 0', > as opposed to 'the value 1'. > > The proposal *is* backwards compatible in that new wallet software > will always understand the old WIF format, however. It will, as it > does today, assume that any kind of public key is possible, and will > have to track all of them, as it has to today. > > == Acknowledgements == > > This BIP is based on the initial proposal by Thomas Voegtlin > on the Bitcoin Dev mailing > listhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-September/015007.html > and the Electrum 3.0 > implementationhttps://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/82e88cb89df35288b80dfdbe071da74247351251/RELEASE-NOTES#L95-L108 > > == Reference implementation == > > There is a partial implementation which adds, but does not use, the > types described in this BIP here: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12869 > > == References == > > > > == Copyright == > > This document is licensed under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license. > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Bech32 and WIF payload format are mostly orthogonal issues. You can design a >> new wallet import format now and later switch it to Bech32. >> >> On Sep 17, 2017, at 7:42 AM, AJ West via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> >> Hi I have a small interjection about the point on error correction (excuse >> me if it seems elementary). Isn't there an argument to be made where a >> wallet software should never attempt to figure out the 'correct' address, or >> in this case private key? I don't think it's crazy to suggest somebody could >> import a slightly erroneous WIF, the software gracefully error-corrects any >> problem, but then the user copies that error onward such as in their backup >> processes like a paper wallet. I always hate to advocate against a feature, >> I'm just worried too much error correcting removes the burden of exactitude >> and attention of the user (eg. "I know I can have up to 4 errors"). >> >> I'm pretty sure I read those arguments somewhere in a documentation or issue >> tracker/forum post. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the bigger picture in this >> particular case, but I was just reminded of that concept (even if it only >> applies generally). >> >> Thanks, >> AJ West >> >> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >>> >>> On 17.09.2017 04:29, Pieter Wuille wrote: >>> > >>> > This has been a low-priority thing for me, though, and the computation >>> > work >>> > to find a good checksum is significant. >>> > >>> >>> Thanks for the info. I guess this means that a bech32 format for private >>> keys is not going to happen soon. Even if such a format was available, >>> the issue would remain for segwit-in-p2sh addresses, which use base58. >>> >>> The ambiguity of the WIF format is currently holding me from releasing a >>> segwit-capable version of Electrum. I believe it is not acceptable to >>> use the current WIF format with segwit scripts; that would just create >>> technological debt, forcing wallets to try all possible scripts. There >>> is a good reason why WIF adds a 0x01 byte for compressed pubkeys; it >>> makes it unambiguous. >>> >>> I see only two options: >>> 1. Disable private keys export in Electrum Segwit wallets, until a >>> common WIF extension has been agreed on. >>> 2. Define my own WIF extension for Electrum, and go ahead with it. >>> >>> Defining my own format does make sense for the xpub/xprv format, because >>> Electrum users need to share master public keys across Electrum wallets. >>> It makes much less sense for WIF, though, because WIF is mostly used to >>> import/sweep keys from other wallets. >>> >>> I would love to know what other wallet developers are going to do, >>> especially Core. Are you going to export private keys used in segwit >>> scripts in the current WIF format? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>