X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
------=_Part_371710_1497331813.1780928646953
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_371711_1355420289.1780928646953"
------=_Part_371711_1355420289.1780928646953
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi list,
I would like to ask for early feedback on an idea before attempting any
formal BIP submission.
The proposal is a display/input layer for BIP39 recovery phrases in
additional native languages.
The important constraint is that this does not change the BIP39
cryptographic flow. The canonical mnemonic remains the existing BIP39
English wordlist, and PBKDF2 is still performed on the canonical English
form.
The native-language lists are index-paired to the English BIP39 wordlist.
In other words, each native word maps to the same 0-2047 index as the
corresponding English BIP39 word. Wallets could display or accept the
native-language form for UX purposes, but internally normalize back to the
canonical English mnemonic before seed generation.
Motivation:
Many users around the world are asked to back up and restore Bitcoin
wallets using English recovery words, even when English is not their native
language. This creates UX risk, spelling mistakes, misunderstanding, and
lower confidence during backup and recovery.
This proposal tries to improve multilingual recovery UX while keeping
compatibility with existing BIP39 behavior.
This is not:
A new seed scheme
A replacement for BIP39
A new cryptographic standard
A change to PBKDF2 input
A wallet-specific format
It is intended as a display/input convention for wallets that want to
support native-language recovery UX while preserving canonical BIP39
compatibility.
A draft implementation and wordlists are here:
https://github.com/osem23/bip39-wordlists-tzur
I would appreciate feedback on:
Whether this idea is appropriate for the BIP process at all
Whether it should be considered informational rather than standards-track
Whether the index-paired approach creates hidden risks
Whether wallet developers see practical value in this
How native-speaker review and normalization rules should be handled
Whether there is prior work I should study before continuing
Thank you,
Daniel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/e4ee1a70-aa70-4dbe-9f6c-27c26c5d17e0n%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_371711_1355420289.1780928646953
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi list,
I would like to ask for early feedback on an idea before =
attempting any formal BIP submission.
The proposal is a display/input=
layer for BIP39 recovery phrases in additional native languages.
The=
important constraint is that this does not change the BIP39 cryptographic =
flow. The canonical mnemonic remains the existing BIP39 English wordlist, a=
nd PBKDF2 is still performed on the canonical English form.
The nativ=
e-language lists are index-paired to the English BIP39 wordlist. In other w=
ords, each native word maps to the same 0-2047 index as the corresponding E=
nglish BIP39 word. Wallets could display or accept the native-language form=
for UX purposes, but internally normalize back to the canonical English mn=
emonic before seed generation.
Motivation:
Many users around th=
e world are asked to back up and restore Bitcoin wallets using English reco=
very words, even when English is not their native language. This creates UX=
risk, spelling mistakes, misunderstanding, and lower confidence during bac=
kup and recovery.
This proposal tries to improve multilingual recover=
y UX while keeping compatibility with existing BIP39 behavior.
This i=
s not:
A new seed scheme
A replacement for BIP39
A new cryp=
tographic standard
A change to PBKDF2 input
A wallet-specific for=
mat
It is intended as a display/input convention for wallets that wan=
t to support native-language recovery UX while preserving canonical BIP39 c=
ompatibility.
A draft implementation and wordlists are here:
https://github.com=
/osem23/bip39-wordlists-tzur
I would appreciate feedback on:
<=
p>Whether this idea is appropriate for the BIP process at all
Whether =
it should be considered informational rather than standards-track
Whet=
her the index-paired approach creates hidden risks
Whether wallet deve=
lopers see practical value in this
How native-speaker review and norma=
lization rules should be handled
Whether there is prior work I should =
study before continuing