from:"Mike Caldwell"

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-05-04 Thread Mike Caldwell

I will drink to that!

Bitte ein Bit! (A Bit please - aka Bitburger Beer)

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

 On May 4, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Aaron Voisine vois...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
 little bit that overloading the word bit would be every bit as bad
 as a two bit horse with the bit between it's teeth that bit the hand
 that feeds it, or a drill bit broken to bits after just a bit of use.
 
 Aaron
 
 There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole
 government working for you -- Will Rodgers
 
 
 On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
 +1
 
 On 4 May 2014 02:06, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
 would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
 'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
 will). It's easier to say and my guess is people would tend to use it
 naturally own their own. Kind of like 'bucks' for dollars.
 
 The other synergies are:
 -bit is part of the word Bitcoin. The currency unit bit is part of a
 whole bitcoin.
 -bit symbolically represents the tech nature of the bitcoin.
 -bit used to be a unit of money way back when. This largely reclaims it.
 -when used as money bit when in references to a precession metal coin.
 The name 'bitcoin' references that as well as the mimicking of the gold
 standard in the protocol rules.
 
 All around I don't think there is a better fit. I doubt people will get
 confused by it. The context it's used in will distinguish it from other
 uses of the word.
 
 On 05/03/2014 12:27 PM, Mike Caldwell wrote:
 I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either
 computer science or Bitcoin.  The goal of getting people to understand
 enough about Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is in scope
 of our efforts. Getting them to understand computer science at large at the
 same time, less so.
 
 The fact that people routinely confuse RAM and hard drive sizes has much
 to do with the fact that the average lay person has little need to
 prioritize this as something to keep in the forefront.  They don't get
 horribly confused, they just simply don't get worked up over what looks 
 to
 them like a rounding error, much to the dismay of anyone who believes that
 everyone should be an expert at computer science.  The average joe may
 assess (accurately from his perspective) that the distinction isn't
 important enough to merit significant mental resources and he is justified
 in not expending them that way even if someone else thinks he should.
 
 Poor understanding is precisely what a proper effort to name this would
 be to avoid.  It is not frill or aesthetics, it is a planned targeting of
 language to achieve the clearest communication to the widest possible 
 target
 audience using the language most likely to be understood by them in light 
 of
 our objectives.  It's marketing.
 
 Mike
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On May 3, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Christophe Biocca
 christophe.bio...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Context as a disambiguator works fine when the interlocutors
 understand the topics they're talking about.
 Not a day goes by without me seeing neurotypical people get horribly
 confused between RAM and Hard Drive sizes, because they share the same
 units (not that that can be helped, as the units are supposed to be
 the same, base 1000 vs 1024 notwithstanding).
 
 Bit (as a unit) is already really confusing for anyone who doesn't
 deal with it on a regular basis. I think people who don't see an issue
 are making an assumption based on their own lack of confusion. We
 understand computer science AND Bitcoin. Most people have zero
 understanding of either.
 
 Bitcoin already has a ton of issues with terrible names for things:
 
 - Mining (for transaction validation).
 - Addresses (which are meant to be one-time use, and don't even really
 exist at the network level).
 - Wallets (which don't hold your bitcoins, can be copied, and all
 backups can be stolen from equally).
 
 I end up having to make the distinctions obvious every time I explain
 Bitcoin to someone new to it. There's an acceptable tradeoff here,
 because there were arguably no better words to assign to these
 concepts (although I'd argue mining is a really awful metaphor, and is
 the one that prompts the most questions from people). Then add to the
 pile a bunch of third parties naming themselves after parts of the
 protocol (Coinbase,Blockchain.info). Not blaming them for it, but I've
 definitiely seen average people get confused between the blockchain
 and blockchain.info (not so much Coinbase, because that name doesn't
 come up in beginner explanations).
 
 It seems downright masochistic to add
 yet-another-word-that-doesn't-mean-what-you-think-it-means to the pile
 for no reason other than aesthetics. Are we actively trying to confuse
 people

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-05-03 Thread Mike Caldwell

I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either computer 
science or Bitcoin.  The goal of getting people to understand enough about 
Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is in scope of our efforts. 
Getting them to understand computer science at large at the same time, less so.

The fact that people routinely confuse RAM and hard drive sizes has much to do 
with the fact that the average lay person has little need to prioritize this as 
something to keep in the forefront.  They don't get horribly confused, they 
just simply don't get worked up over what looks to them like a rounding error, 
much to the dismay of anyone who believes that everyone should be an expert at 
computer science.  The average joe may assess (accurately from his perspective) 
that the distinction isn't important enough to merit significant mental 
resources and he is justified in not expending them that way even if someone 
else thinks he should.

Poor understanding is precisely what a proper effort to name this would be to 
avoid.  It is not frill or aesthetics, it is a planned targeting of language to 
achieve the clearest communication to the widest possible target audience using 
the language most likely to be understood by them in light of our objectives.  
It's marketing. 

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

 On May 3, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Christophe Biocca christophe.bio...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 Context as a disambiguator works fine when the interlocutors
 understand the topics they're talking about.
 Not a day goes by without me seeing neurotypical people get horribly
 confused between RAM and Hard Drive sizes, because they share the same
 units (not that that can be helped, as the units are supposed to be
 the same, base 1000 vs 1024 notwithstanding).
 
 Bit (as a unit) is already really confusing for anyone who doesn't
 deal with it on a regular basis. I think people who don't see an issue
 are making an assumption based on their own lack of confusion. We
 understand computer science AND Bitcoin. Most people have zero
 understanding of either.
 
 Bitcoin already has a ton of issues with terrible names for things:
 
 - Mining (for transaction validation).
 - Addresses (which are meant to be one-time use, and don't even really
 exist at the network level).
 - Wallets (which don't hold your bitcoins, can be copied, and all
 backups can be stolen from equally).
 
 I end up having to make the distinctions obvious every time I explain
 Bitcoin to someone new to it. There's an acceptable tradeoff here,
 because there were arguably no better words to assign to these
 concepts (although I'd argue mining is a really awful metaphor, and is
 the one that prompts the most questions from people). Then add to the
 pile a bunch of third parties naming themselves after parts of the
 protocol (Coinbase,Blockchain.info). Not blaming them for it, but I've
 definitiely seen average people get confused between the blockchain
 and blockchain.info (not so much Coinbase, because that name doesn't
 come up in beginner explanations).
 
 It seems downright masochistic to add
 yet-another-word-that-doesn't-mean-what-you-think-it-means to the pile
 for no reason other than aesthetics. Are we actively trying to confuse
 people?

--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get 
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Mike Caldwell

As someone who has put a lot of thought into how to best help typical everyday 
people understand bitcoin, I strongly favor 1 bit = 1e-6 BTC as being very 
straightforward to explain to non technical types, and also XBT as one bit.  
There are a million bits in a bit coin is highly intelligible to average 
people. 

I consider overload/conflict with existing meanings of bit as a non-issue for 
typical population at large. 

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 20, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Whatever we call it. I'm happy to support it as long as it's 1e-6.

--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Mike Caldwell

It is a paradigm that is easy to explain and grasp for neurotypical people. 

The average mind has no problem overloading words and distinguishing the 
intended meaning from context. For most people, overloading a single syllable 
word with a new meaning is much less complicated than using a unique 3+ 
syllable word like satoshi or micro-anything.

Doing software development warps our minds to demand fully qualified names for 
everything. We know our compilers would say bit? Fatal error 0xaaawtf, 
can't continue, not sure if you mean a Boolean or a dog bite.  But this 
peculiarity should not be projected onto the people we are trying to get 
bitcoin to appeal to, not if we want them to feel like we think about their 
experience. 

If I were to say a Bitcoin can be divided into a million bits, less than 0.1% 
of average joes would think I was talking about German beers or the thing that 
goes in horses mouths. Really, most people are good at using context to relate 
this to a dollar can be divided into 100 cents and accepting it.  This 
requires much less of their mind resources than using SI prefixes correctly or 
learning 3 syllable words that (to them) have no instantly apparent 
relationship to Bitcoin. 

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Arne Brutschy abruts...@xylon.de wrote:

 I propose that users are offered a preference to denominate the
 Bitcoin currency in a unit called a bit. Where one bitcoin (BTC)
 equals one million bits (bits) and one bit equals 100 satoshis.
 
 There have been many proposals for more or less arbitrary subunits. What
 would be the merit of your proposal? I don't really follow the reasoning
 that it's better if it's uncommon for everyone rather than just uncommon
 for people not used to metric units.
 
 Regarding the label of a bit: I have to agree with the others that bit
 is heavily overused as a unit, but I am a computer scientist, so I don't
 have the average joe's perspective on this. I find it weird to use as
 it's already in use in English - a bit of work etc

--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Mike Caldwell

Mainly because it is short, memorable, effectively leads the listener to infer 
the proper meaning, is culturally neutral, is easy to say by speakers of just 
about any language, and many other reasons. 

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 20, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Arne Brutschy abruts...@xylon.de wrote:
 
 agree that overloading isn't an issue when necessary, but my point was
 that the necessity is lacking. If we're free to pick anything, why pick
 something that is overloaded?
 
 Moreover, bit is an abbreviation of bitcoin and might be confused with
 it. Most currencies use a work that is phonetically very different and
 short, so why not do the same?
 
 Pluk, or cred, or finney (as proposed the thread I posted), or
 whichever. We could call it unsp for unspent ;)
 
 Arne
 

--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Mike Caldwell

By culturally neutral I mean we avoid deliberately invoking a cultural 
reference in the name.  For example satoshi would be a reference to Japanese 
culture just for being a common Japanese name regardless of who Satoshi turns 
out to be. 

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 20, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Christophe Biocca 
 christophe.bio...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Culturally neutral? bit in French phonetically collides with slang
 for phallus (bitte, with a silent e). Apparently it means louse
 in Turkish as well.
 
 Not that this really would be avoidable with any short word (all the
 short possible words are usually taken), but it's not neutral.
 
 On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
 Hello,
 
 just my two 'cents':
 
 Terms arises by itself. Just as most people speak of coins when they
 mean bitcoins. I do not see that bitcoin is currently in common use
 except for speculation. Therefore no term for smaller units has
 established yet. No problem in my eyes. Time will tell.
 
 - oliver
 
 
 --
 Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
 Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
 applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
 this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
 http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
 
 --
 Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
 Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
 applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
 this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
 http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Mike Caldwell

My impression:

Good because it is short, memorable, and pronounceable by speakers of most
languages (though to most of the world that would be oo-bit, as u being yu
is mostly an English thing)

Downsides include the fact that μ is not a U, it just resembles one. It is a
lowercase M in Greek, a live spoken language also studied by many, and calling
it a U conveys a notion of global unawareness. And the potential for XBT to
be 1e-6 BTC on the world stage would be huge, worth pursuing.

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Justin A
allp...@gmail.commailto:allp...@gmail.com wrote:

delurk

What about ubit, pronounced YOU-bit, representing 1e-6 bitcoin? Easy to
say, tied in a visual way to the metric micro, leaves the required 2 decimal
places for the marginally numerate.. What more could one want?

/delurk

Also, hi. My first post; plan to get involved over the southern hemisphere
winter if I can learn enough.

On Apr 20, 2014 4:32 PM, Mike Caldwell
mcaldw...@swipeclock.commailto:mcaldw...@swipeclock.com wrote:
By culturally neutral I mean we avoid deliberately invoking a cultural
reference in the name. For example satoshi would be a reference to Japanese
culture just for being a common Japanese name regardless of who Satoshi turns
out to be.

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Christophe Biocca
christophe.bio...@gmail.commailto:christophe.bio...@gmail.com wrote:

Culturally neutral? bit in French phonetically collides with slang
for phallus (bitte, with a silent e). Apparently it means louse
in Turkish as well.

Not that this really would be avoidable with any short word (all the
short possible words are usually taken), but it's not neutral.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Oliver Egginger
bitc...@olivere.demailto:bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Hello,

just my two 'cents':

Terms arises by itself. Just as most people speak of coins when they
mean bitcoins. I do not see that bitcoin is currently in common use
except for speculation. Therefore no term for smaller units has
established yet. No problem in my eyes. Time will tell.

- oliver

--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

2014-04-20 Thread Mike Caldwell

If bit had to be preceded by a letter I would nominate ebit or xbit (which
could still be XBT)

Those needing a definition for x could define it as coin/100.

That said, I am still more in favor of bit. Xbit would just solve the
problems others cite about ambiguity if they had to be solved without the
resulting name being too long.

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Un Ix
slashdevn...@hotmail.commailto:slashdevn...@hotmail.com wrote:

Something tells me this would be reduced to a single syllable in common usage
I.e. bit.

My 2 cents goes for bit.

Because: Bitcoin is a digital currency, BTC starts with bit, bit refers to
a small amount of something in its regular english usage and lastly 99.9876543%
of people on the planet don't know what a digital bit is yet ...

Gavin

On 21/04/2014, at 9:20 am, Mike Caldwell
mcaldw...@swipeclock.commailto:mcaldw...@swipeclock.com wrote:

My impression:

Good because it is short, memorable, and pronounceable by speakers of most
languages (though to most of the world that would be oo-bit, as u being yu
is mostly an English thing)

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Justin A
allp...@gmail.commailto:allp...@gmail.com wrote:

delurk

/delurk

Also, hi. My first post; plan to get involved over the southern hemisphere
winter if I can learn enough.

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Christophe Biocca
christophe.bio...@gmail.commailto:christophe.bio...@gmail.com wrote:

Culturally neutral? bit in French phonetically collides with slang
for phallus (bitte, with a silent e). Apparently it means louse
in Turkish as well.

Not that this really would be avoidable with any short word (all the
short possible words are usually taken), but it's not neutral.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Oliver Egginger
bitc...@olivere.demailto:bitc...@olivere.de wrote:
Hello,

just my two 'cents':

- oliver

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin

2013-12-09 Thread Mike Caldwell

For what it's worth, once upon a time I pushed this agenda on Bitcointalk.  I'd 
say early 2011 or so.  The response I got was so strong and unanimous in favor 
of this point being absolutely non-negotiable that if the money supply were 
anything other than fixed, Bitcoin may as well be pretend e-dollars.  I was not 
just persuaded against it, I was put in my place.

I believe that if there ever becomes a consensus that Bitcoin's inflation 
parameters were a show-stopper for the Bitcoin economy, that the power to 
correct it lies with merchants, who would vote for changing the rules.  I 
believe they would do this not by changing Bitcoin, but by accepting, in 
parallel, a brand new alt coin that reflects the consensus as to how the 
inflation should be.  I believe such an alt coin would have its genesis at 
around the time that consensus moved toward accepting inflation, rather than 
adopting the seignorage of some other alt coin out there today.

Mike/Casascius


From: Ryan Carboni [mailto:ryan.jc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:24 PM
To: apoels...@wpsoftware.net
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin

It is not a violation of the trust of those holding the currency. Many people 
bought Bitcoin in the hopes that it's value in the relation of other currencies 
will increase, not because there's a fixed money supply. The majority of people 
using Bitcoin as a currency in exchange for real goods are using the exchanges.

 My proposal will still allow for 4.9% semi-weekly variations in the price of 
Bitcoin, allowing for it to appreciate 11,800% per year.

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Poelstra 
as...@sfu.camailto:as...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 02:01:07PM -0800, Ryan Carboni wrote:
 This is no doubt probably a very controversial Bitcoin Improvement Proposal
 and is also a very rough draft of one.

Ryan, you can stop there already because any change to the inflation
formula (supposing such a thing is even possible, which it's not)
would be a violation of the trust of those holding the currency, who
obtained it while believing that its inflation algorithm would not
change.

--
Andrew Poelstra
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.nethttp://wpsoftware.net
Web:   http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney
 worries about, I would have finished high school.   --Edward Snowden

--
Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK 
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

[Bitcoin-development] BIP 38

2013-10-25 Thread Mike Caldwell

Hey everyone,

I have noticed that there was a recent change to BIP 0038 (Password-Protected 
Private Key) on the Wiki, which is a proposal I wrote in late 2012.  Gregory, 
it looks to me as though you have made this change, and I'm hoping for your 
help here.  The change suggests that the number was never assigned, and that 
there has been no discussion regarding the proposal on this list.

I had this number assigned by Amir Taaki in November of 2012, consistent with 
what I understood the procedure to be at the time by reading BIP 0001 on the 
Wiki.

First off, I want to confirm that when I send to the list, that there isn't a 
technical reason it's not getting to everybody.  I believe I most recently 
mentioned BIP 38 to this list on August 17, 2013. (EDIT: seems my prior 
messages, including an earlier revision of this message, have not made it to 
the list)

Secondly, in the case that it is deemed that this has never been properly 
submitted, discussed, or pushed forward, I'd like to propose that this happen, 
and request help with the formalities where I'm lacking.

I believe BIP 38 is a valuable proposal that is seeing real-world use.  BIP 38 
allows people to create private keys (including paper wallets) protected by a 
password, and also allows one party to select the password for paper wallets to 
be created by another party.

Real-world use includes a working implementation at BitAddress.org, one at 
Bit2Factor.org, implementation by Mycelium, and others.  Also, others are 
informally using it as a sort of abbreviated escrow scheme where a buyer and 
seller agree on the buyer maintaining control over the release of funds.  In 
short, it would be terribly confusing to reassign the number BIP 38 after 
already having had an established meaning for the better part of the year, 
particularly on what appears to be procedural grounds.

Mike

--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 38

2013-10-25 Thread Mike Caldwell

Gregory,

No problem, thanks for providing the IRC recap, and glad I've finally made 
radio contact with the list.  Perhaps there can be some long overdue 
discussion on the topic.

I see Kogelman's improvements to my proposal as being of merit and may very 
well be sufficient to supersede what I've originally proposed.  I suppose the 
main thing I'm wanting to ensure is that the identity of my original proposal 
is maintained.  Regardless of whether a paper wallet or physical bitcoin with a 
single address is poor form or whether my proposal is rejected or superseded, I 
hope there can be a consensus that BIP38 can continue to be understood to 
mean Password-protected private key proposal by Mike Caldwell, and that it 
can appear in the lists of BIPs alongside others.

Regarding BIP 22... I in fact did not originally attempt to post to the list 
over what I had created and called BIP 22 once upon a time, I literally just 
created a wiki entry contrary to advice in BIP 1 that I had not read at the 
time.  I recognize it's totally legitimate to feel and act upon the appearance 
that BIP 38 was created in a similar shortcut fashion.  Certainly, the next 
thing I propose will be in the form of a draft outside the BIP numberspace 
and I won't solicit a BIP number without an established consensus in the 
future.  That said, I'm asking for BIP 38 to stand and be recognized as in 
existence, so as to not confuse those who call it by that name and who have 
already chosen to do something with it (whether that's to implement it, or to 
draft improvements to it like Kogelman).

If I did BIP 38 over again, there's a couple shortcomings of my own that I 
wouldn't mind seeing addressed in another iteration, and the right venue for 
that may very well be to contribute to Kogelman's work.  My particular 
improvements might include wanting the ability to outsource the computationally 
expensive step to another service at a minimized risk to the user, potentially 
the ability to have special-purpose encrypted minikeys (sort of how ARM has 
Thumb for places where the tradeoff makes sense), and a typo check with better 
privacy (I currently use sha256(address)[0...3] which may unintentionally 
reveal the bitcoin address, if it's funded, to someone who has the encrypted 
key but doesn't know the password).

mike



-Original Message-
From: Gregory Maxwell [mailto:gmaxw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:05 PM
To: Mike Caldwell
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 38

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Mike Caldwell mcaldw...@swipeclock.com 
wrote:
 I have noticed that there was a recent change to BIP 0038 
 (Password-Protected Private Key) on the Wiki, which is a proposal I 
 wrote in late 2012.  Gregory, it looks to me as though you have made 
 this change, and I’m hoping for your help here.  The change suggests 
 that the number was never assigned, and that there has been no 
 discussion regarding the proposal on this list.

Greetings, (repeating from our discussion on IRC)

No prior messages about your proposal have made it to the list, and no mention 
of the assignment had been made in the wiki.

The first I ever heard of this scheme was long after you'd written the document 
when I attempted to assign the number to something else then noticed something 
existed at that name.

Since you had previously created BIP documents without public discussion (e.g. 
BIP 22
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIGEX_DRAFT_BIP [...] Or, I wonder did your 
emails just get eaten that time too?), I'd just assumed something similar had 
happened here.

I didn't take any action at the time I first noticed it, but after someone 
complained about bitcoin-qt not confirming with BIP38 to me today it was 
clear to me that people were confusing this with something that was 
officially (as much as anything is) supported, so I moved the document out.  
(I've since moved it back, having heard from you that you thought that it had 
actually been assigned/announced).

With respect to moving it forward: Having a wallet which can only a single 
address is poor form. Jean-Paul Kogelman has a draft proposal which is based on 
your BIP38 work though the encoding scheme is different, having been revised in 
response to public discussion.

Perhaps efforts here can be combined?
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin

[Bitcoin-development] BIP 38

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 38

11 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information