[bitcoin-dev] Removal of reject network messages from Bitcoin Core (BIP61)

2019-03-05 Thread Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev
Bitcoin Core may send "reject" messages as response to "tx", "block" or "version" messages from a network peer when the message could not be accepted. This feature is toggled by the `-enablebip61` command line option and has been disabled by default since Bitcoin Core version 0.18.0 (not yet

[bitcoin-dev] Privacy literature review

2019-03-05 Thread Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
Hello list, For the last few weeks I've been working on a literature review for bitcoin privacy: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Privacy It aims to cover about all privacy issues in bitcoin, including Lightning network, and has a bunch of examples to help demonstrate how the concepts work in

[bitcoin-dev] Mailing list downtime, archive, and its future

2019-03-05 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
Hi all, Just fyi, but this bitcoin-dev mailing list has been down for a few weeks. It's currently hosted by Linux Foundation, and they are slowly deprecating their support for email. We will have to find an alternative service provider for the mailing list moving forward. I have received a

[bitcoin-dev] Fortune Cookies to Bitcoin Seed

2019-03-05 Thread Trey Del Bonis via bitcoin-dev
Hello all, This might be another proto-BIP similar to the post about using a card shuffle as a wallet seed that was posted here a few weeks back: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016645.html This is an idea I had to deriving a wallet seed from the lucky

[bitcoin-dev] BIP - Symbol for satoshi

2019-03-05 Thread Amine Chakak via bitcoin-dev
Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to do so, but it says on the website to first propose ideas for BIPS to the mailing list. I would like to propose @bitficus idea for a satoshi symbol (monetary). The idea has been floated around to switch to satoshi as a base unit. The lightning

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging

2019-03-05 Thread Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev
> On 20 Feb 2019, at 4:24 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > Even besides NOINPUT, such a wallet would simply never show a second payment > to the same address (or at least never show it as confirmed, until > successfully spent). This is totally unrelated to NOINPUT. You can make a wallet like this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging

2019-03-05 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
Even besides NOINPUT, such a wallet would simply never show a second payment to the same address (or at least never show it as confirmed, until successfully spent). At least if tx versions are used, it isn't possible to indicate this requirement in current Bitcoin L1 addresses. scriptPubKey

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging

2019-03-05 Thread Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev
This only depends on the contract between the payer and payee. If the contract says address reuse is unacceptable, it’s unacceptable. It has nothing to do with how the payee spends the coin. We can’t ban address reuse at protocol level (unless we never prune the chain), so address reuse could

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer NOINPUT with output tagging

2019-03-05 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Thursday 13 December 2018 12:32:44 Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > While this seems fully compatible with eltoo, is there any other proposals > require NOINPUT, and is adversely affected by either way of tagging? Yes, this seems to break the situation where a wallet wants to use NOINPUT

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys

2019-03-05 Thread Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev
Trying the four possible options (p2pkh compressed, p2pkh uncompressed, seg3, and bech32) is certainly a possibility and in fact, that's what I ended up doing because not every wallet implements something like this, but if there is a header field currently in use, it seemed reasonable to me to use

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys

2019-03-05 Thread Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev
The proposal includes actual code that does verification, but I didn't include code for signing. I thought it could be inferred, but I could at least include a description of how to sign. I am not sure exactly what part you are referring to by "keys speech", but the signatures are done by ECDSA

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys

2019-03-05 Thread Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
Ah, OK, that's of course a good thing to document this undocumented (and strange) stuff, as a matter of fact I implemented it after reading your post (because this was on my todo list since some time) and got annoyed quickly, mainly by what is doing formatMessageForSigning (which is quite trivial

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys

2019-03-05 Thread Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
Then, since you wrote this proposal, maybe you should add the very precise description of the signing/verification process since it is documented nowhere I don't get the use of the speech regarding keys while it should focus on signatures which are summarized in a vague sentence inspired by your

[bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - addrv2 message

2019-03-05 Thread Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev
See https://gist.github.com/laanwj/4fe8470881d7b9499eedc48dc9ef1ad1 for formatted version, Look under "Considerations" for topics that might still need to be discussed. BIP: ??? Layer: Peer Services Title: addrv2 message Author: Wladimir J. van der Laan Comments-Summary: No comments