From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WcfRv-00042Y-NI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:29:43 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.132.66]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WcfRs-00058C-9o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:29:43 +0000 Received: from [37.143.74.116] (helo=[192.168.0.104]); authenticated by wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1WcfRl-0004jl-FT; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:29:33 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5522F33B-E8BB-4F45-B7F5-D63FEEE3A232"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Tamas Blummer In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:29:50 +0200 Message-Id: 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> To: jan.moller@gmail.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; tamas@bitsofproof.com; 1398191380; 1d4dc40c; X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1WcfRs-00058C-9o 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 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:29:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5522F33B-E8BB-4F45-B7F5-D63FEEE3A232 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_40846A90-2C83-4FD2-807E-AAE35C4F72E8" --Apple-Mail=_40846A90-2C83-4FD2-807E-AAE35C4F72E8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Yes, it is current norm. I am questioning if we should hang on to it in = BIPs. I see testnet as a tool for a certain type of testing. Its existence is = likely a consequence of Satoshi not writing unit tests and having = automated integration tests, but creating a shadow chain to try things = out, mostly manually. I do not say testnet (as we know) would not be useful for certain tests. = E.g. as we developed myTREZOR with slush it was useful to have a shared = chain with worthless tokens and transactions we can both refer to. = However for our automated tests chains-in-a-box are better as we can = easily create and exactly re-create wierd situations on-the-fly. While talking about BIP32 hierarchy use, several people argued to use a = level of the hierarchy to identify the chain the key is used on. That = level could identify testnet but as well an alt coin chain. Above leads me thinking that testnet is far less important than to be = addressed in every future BIP. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 22.04.2014, at 19:07, Jan M=F8ller wrote: > 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. >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_40846A90-2C83-4FD2-807E-AAE35C4F72E8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Yes, = it is current norm. I am questioning if we should hang on to it in = BIPs.

I see testnet as a tool for a certain type of = testing. Its existence is likely a consequence of Satoshi not writing = unit tests and having automated integration tests, but creating a shadow = chain to try things out, mostly manually.

I do = not say testnet (as we know) would not be useful for certain tests. E.g. = as we developed myTREZOR with slush it was useful to have a shared chain = with worthless tokens and transactions we can both refer to. However for = our automated tests chains-in-a-box are better as we can easily create = and exactly re-create wierd situations = on-the-fly.

While talking about BIP32 hierarchy = use, several people argued to use a level of the hierarchy to identify = the chain the key is used on. That level could identify testnet but as = well an alt coin chain.

Above leads me thinking = that testnet is far less important than to be addressed in every future = BIP.

Regards,

Tamas = Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com

On 22.04.2014, at 19:07, Jan M=F8ller <jan.moller@gmail.com> = wrote:

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.



= --Apple-Mail=_40846A90-2C83-4FD2-807E-AAE35C4F72E8-- --Apple-Mail=_5522F33B-E8BB-4F45-B7F5-D63FEEE3A232 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTVrUeAAoJEPZykcUXcTkc3CUIAJ/0Vh69ntF/sPXKY5SBsGqL rBRrgfxvuG+P4GgTqpHI4q4avhv/tUTha5YWLJEhM+Etpf6ZNsxO8PF27guYBPi1 sUV+dUsxbH0W+debRI6fjVMQ3w0i/pERSfpZctl+NAC4zoO82PXuX+9CCynDPoks pxse12IhyTcLMvwQDQsbdNLw1ErE8rWPQEARbbmYd4o9+GRZC0+OknzUfA0ZJaKs iajyAjO2pCxG12BB4HZgVf/byEGQpwT88cnMASHBoIgmqI+DqllHIzPoSQ8UyWQV ezZMyw/nb66NNhF6DU6pWYDfNWScEWY3GvaS8kan2SOkmsIcXL/13HX8NqSSEK8= =gqci -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5522F33B-E8BB-4F45-B7F5-D63FEEE3A232--