Hi Dustin,
That sounds interesting but I can't follow your email to be honest.
On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 07:38 -0700, Dustin Dettmer via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> This mitigates, I believe, all leak vectors besides k/R hacking and
> prechosen entropy.
Hm, so what vectors is this supposed to mitigate?
I think your proposal is simply to use BIP32 for all derivations and
the observation that you can work with derived keys with the
corresponding suffixes of the path. I believe that this is a good idea.
But I don't think that simply writing a standard will help. It's just
one step. If all your
Good morning Andrew,
> > Hi, noob question here: Is there a long-term plan for if the block reward
> > drops
> > too low to ensure the security of the network?
> >
> > IIUC miners only make profit from block rewards and transaction fees, and
> > once
> > the block reward drop to zero we're
Hi List,
I felt this topic deserved it's own thread but it follows on from the
mailing list post [2] announcing a new PR [1] to change BIP-340 in several
ways, including adding random auxiliary data into the nonce
derivation function. Rather than hashing the randomness with the secret key
and
Hi Tim,
Hm, so what vectors is this supposed to mitigate? Leaking through the
> generated public keys? Anything else?
The main thing it’s protecting against is the stealing of your funds by
malicious hardware & software. There are some side benefits as well though.
- What are you trying to
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:00 AM, Lloyd Fournier via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I felt this topic deserved it's own thread but it follows on from the mailing
> list post [2] announcing a new PR [1] to change BIP-340 in several ways,
> including adding random auxiliary data into the
