Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP39 word list

[Brooks Boyd <boydb@midnightdesign.ws>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7375 bytes --]

That would be a way to go, though iterating through all possibilities of a
similar letter misspell would take significantly more processing (4x3x3
= 36 total possibilities, only to cull it back to 2, in your example), than
iterating through a list of pre-calculated possibilities. It's definitely
not a hard computation on any modern device, though, and depending on how
"helpful" the program wants to try to be, it could even try help with
misspellings due to hitting a keyboard key next to the correct one or
hitting a letter twice, depending on how big a comparison matrix it wants
to create.

I do agree it should not be required for clients implementing the BIP to
help fix mis-translations, though keeping the similar letter unit test in
there I like, since it helps convey the thought that went into culling some
words from the dictionary. Though to Allen's point, what did happen with
the words that were found to be similar; was one of the similar words left
in the list or were all the similar words removed?

Brooks
MidnightLightning


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:

> Hi Brooks,
>
> I've been already thinking about eat -> cat typing mistake. Actually there
> may be simplier solution than having wordlist with duplicated words.
> Because there's already a mapping of similar characters in the source code
> (currently only in unit test, but it can be moved), when user type a word
> which isn't in wordlist, application may try to use such mapping to find a
> combination which actually is in the mapping. This may be disambiguous in
> some cases, but giving a choice between few words may be better than hard
> fail. And it is actually quite easy to implement. Although I think
> application can do such smart suggestions and help user to recover badly
> written mnemonic, I don't think it is necessary to standardize such method
> directly into BIP. It may or may not be implemented by developers and it is
> just nice to have feature.
>
> Example:
>
> user type ear, but it isn't in wordlist.
>
> Regards the mapping,
> E is similar to A, C, F, O
> A is similar to E, C, O
> R is similar to B, P, H
>
> So application can calculate combinations of possible characters:
>
> a) when app consider than the the user mistyped only one character
> AAR, CAR, FAR, OAR
> EER, ECR, EOR
> EAB, EAP, EAH
>
> b) when app consider than user maybe mistyped more characters, it may do
> full combination matrix
> AEB,  ACB, AOB,  ... OEH, OCH, OOH
>
> and then ask user to select only these combinations which are actually
> presented in the wordlist. In this particular case it may be only CAR or
> FAR (both cannot be in the wordlist because of rules in similarity).
>
> Marek
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Brooks Boyd <boydb@midnightdesign.ws>wrote:
>
>> I was inspired to join the mailing list to comment on some of these
>> discussions about BIP39, which I think will have great use in the Bitcoin
>> community and outside it as a way to transcribe binary data.
>>
>> The one thought I had as the discussions about similar characters are
>> resulting in culling words from the list, is that it only helps to validate
>> input, not help the user if it is incorrect.
>>
>> For example, if both "cat" and "eat" were in the word list, and someone
>> wrote down "eat", but later mis-translated it and put "cat" back into
>> translator, the result would be a checksum error; "cat" is a different
>> number, so the checksum would fail.
>>
>> As it currently stands, "cat" would not be a valid word ("eat" is the
>> real word, and no other number is "cat"), so the translator can throw a
>> different error which is more helpful (i.e. "'cat' isn't a valid word
>> choice), but still doesn't get the user to the proper translation.
>>
>> What about if the wordlist included those "words that are so similar to
>> each other that we only kept one of them" and had them all refer to the
>> same number? I propose the wordlist have the possibility of multiple words
>> on a single line, with the first word on the line being the "primary" or
>> "real" word to be used, with the other similar words be included so that a
>> translation program if it wanted to assist the user could fix their input
>> for them (verbosely or not), along the lines of "'cat' isn't a valid word
>> choice; assuming you meant 'eat', which is valid". You might still hit a
>> checksum error if that similar word is still the wrong word, but as it
>> stands now, I know you culled a bunch of words from the wordlist as "too
>> similar", but if I want to try and help the user fix a bad input, I need to
>> write a translation program with a full english dictionary alongside the
>> BIP39 dictionary.
>>
>> I'd be willing to create a pull request for such an update, but before I
>> delve into that, does this sound like a good idea? I could see it devolving
>> into a slippery slope if every number in the 2048 set had a dozen word
>> variations (misspellings, similar words, slang terms for the real word,
>> etc.) which could get confusing of how similar is similar enough to be
>> added as an alternate, and the standard would need to be clear that when
>> translating binary to words, you only use the "main" word for that row, not
>> any of the variations.
>>
>> MidnightLightning
>>
>>
>> > I've just pushed updated wordlist which is filtered to similar
>> characters taken from this matrix.
>> > BIP39 now consider following character pairs as similar:
>> >         similar = (
>> >             ('a', 'c'), ('a', 'e'), ('a', 'o'),
>> >             ('b', 'd'), ('b', 'h'), ('b', 'p'), ('b', 'q'), ('b', 'r'),
>> >             ('c', 'e'), ('c', 'g'), ('c', 'n'), ('c', 'o'), ('c', 'q'),
>> ('c', 'u'),
>> >             ('d', 'g'), ('d', 'h'), ('d', 'o'), ('d', 'p'), ('d', 'q'),
>> >             ('e', 'f'), ('e', 'o'),
>> >             ('f', 'i'), ('f', 'j'), ('f', 'l'), ('f', 'p'), ('f', 't'),
>> >             ('g', 'j'), ('g', 'o'), ('g', 'p'), ('g', 'q'), ('g', 'y'),
>> >             ('h', 'k'), ('h', 'l'), ('h', 'm'), ('h', 'n'), ('h', 'r'),
>> >             ('i', 'j'), ('i', 'l'), ('i', 't'), ('i', 'y'),
>> >             ('j', 'l'), ('j', 'p'), ('j', 'q'), ('j', 'y'),
>> >             ('k', 'x'),
>> >             ('l', 't'),
>> >             ('m', 'n'), ('m', 'w'),
>> >             ('n', 'u'), ('n', 'z'),
>> >             ('o', 'p'), ('o', 'q'), ('o', 'u'), ('o', 'v'),
>> >             ('p', 'q'), ('p', 'r'),
>> >             ('q', 'y'),
>> >             ('s', 'z'),
>> >             ('u', 'v'), ('u', 'w'), ('u', 'y'),
>> >             ('v', 'w'), ('v', 'y')
>> >         )
>> > Feel free to review and comment current wordlist, but I think we're
>> slowly moving forward final list.
>> > slush
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform
>> that
>> developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this
>> white
>> paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
>> Android apps secure.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10200 bytes --]