From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7ABC002D for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9AA6106B for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MDMUxqqI9Pt4 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch (mail-4322.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.22]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF5B261047 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:05 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1652210891; bh=tSKTIced7VBuXBciOzGSdlsWXGhfQcIbyrnvSqIT/Jw=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=qCnQDuYFeKsCsKbBIgCwwlkS0VwQ+h+Nd/Sg4ynlGvyWAZRUlRYt+RnVT5f6iL6+z r1C9lIeANICpl5ob0I1Yv9fUeoSQKtWQP+T83EEEY+Vi2VZS0m9R+rTV0jkroEkEfY Rj7HQXsxSJWbscx5+CbE8j1Fs9gna/SMXHK1EQbiR2LetaFYxrdYO9laPHUYuglTk/ 5NHQ12VGFNybCzYt5dMve3sXmDkYUYdPBKVOU2J1MRErYY/V7Ld3NVHZ9/SCikM6rq aNwE76yBcbqZq82ka6uW0bTHY1Aq284SATX1iimzhWykw7quBsjnOZMHu4DRedmRgf 37uuEUER7InRA== To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , ZmnSCPxj From: AdamISZ Reply-To: AdamISZ Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6IPqvNW2vQcHQLhUgSmQQLqtnV0RGrsUfnoUMKgv0SDQpVvKh7PIqJOKNazzgEzGE2W5OHHrlEtmg9lapjbiSjTpUuxqPmsiFua2P_ZN_FY=@protonmail.com> References: <22c80504-e648-e021-866e-ca5a5db3b247@riseup.net> <82948428-29a3-e50a-a54a-520a83f39bba@riseup.net> <6IPqvNW2vQcHQLhUgSmQQLqtnV0RGrsUfnoUMKgv0SDQpVvKh7PIqJOKNazzgEzGE2W5OHHrlEtmg9lapjbiSjTpUuxqPmsiFua2P_ZN_FY=@protonmail.com> Feedback-ID: 11565511:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 May 2022 19:29:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Timelocked address fidelity bond for BIP39 seeds X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:14 -0000 > I suppose ultimately this brings up the question of the scope of this BIP= . The abstract points out that the BIP contains both a definition of addres= s derivation, but also how to sign fidelity bond certificates. > > My feeling is that the latter might be better not included? I note that t= he 'Motivation' section gives motivation for standardisation of derivation = (this includes things like time schedule), but not the second area - certif= icate signing. I think the second area is much more tricky, but much more t= o the point is, isn't it the case that that second area, can be interpreted= without consensus between wallet developers? So say you were a hardware wa= llet provider, or a "node in a box" provider - your customers want you to p= rovide the ability move funds around, including e.g. moving funds out of an= old Joinmarket wallet (in which say there is a now expired timelock addres= s utxo) by just entering its BIP39 seed. If this BIP addresses that, it sho= uld be enough. > > I don't doubt that there's gains to be had from a broader community discu= ssing and agreeing the details of how to create a fidelity bond certificate= , but it's a separate, and more difficult, task. > > Cheers, > waxwing/AdamISZ Further to that last point, as the BIP draft currently says: " Almost all wallets implementing this standard can use their already-existing "Sign Message" function to sign the certificate message. As the certificate message itself is always an ascii string, the wallet may not need to specially implement this section at all but just rely on users copypasting their certificate message into the already-existing "Sign Message" user interface. This works as long as the wallet knows how to use the private key of the timelocked address for signing messages." So, isn't that an argument that we don't need to specify the certificate me= ssage format here? On the other hand, I can hardly disagree that it's worth presenting a kind = of 'default' way of doing it. But I fear it is not at all simple to decide = what a secure, general format should be (as per the discussion we started h= aving here about domain separation tags). Cheers, waxwing/AdamISZ