On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:00:43AM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
Hi slush,
Thank you for your new proposal; it seems to be a compromise.
@Christophe Biocca:
If the wordlist becomes part of the standard, then we will run into
problems of collisions once users ask for wordlists in every
Le 24/01/2014 10:05, Peter Todd a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:00:43AM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
Hi slush,
Thank you for your new proposal; it seems to be a compromise.
@Christophe Biocca:
If the wordlist becomes part of the standard, then we will run into
problems of collisions
MultiBit here.
At least Trezor and bitcoinj (Multibit) seems to be going in this way,
which is 100% of clients which expressed interest in bip39 :-).
slush
We'll be using the BIP39 implementation present in Bitcoinj as slush says.
Proper Unicode handling is a serious issue however. You don't
We should just perform Unicode canonicalization before any text hits the
crypto code. There are algorithms that automatically resolve such issues.
Although with an English wordlist it would seem to make no difference
anyway.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Gary Rowe g.r...@froot.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we received from
the community about our BIP39 proposal and we tried to meet all
requirements for such standard. Specifically the proposal now doesn't
require any specific wordlist, so every client can use its very own list of
We have an implementation of the latest spec in bitcoinj, with the wordlist
provided by slush+stick. As far as I can see it's all working fine so LGTM
from us.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:42 PM, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
Hi all,
during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we
On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:42:37 PM slush wrote:
Hi all,
during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we received from
the community about our BIP39 proposal and we tried to meet all
requirements for such standard. Specifically the proposal now doesn't
require any specific
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
How are they compatible if they could be using entirely different word
lists??
Wordlist is necessary for the step [seed]-[mnemonic]. Step
[mnemonic]-[bip32 root] doesn't need any wordlist, there's just hashing
involved.
For this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since you are taking the hash of Unicode data, I would strongly
recommend using a canonical form, e.g. Normalized Form C.
On 01/20/2014 09:42 AM, slush wrote:
Hi all,
during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we
received from
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
Hi all,
during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we received
from the community about our BIP39 proposal and we tried to meet all
requirements for such standard. Specifically the proposal now doesn't
require
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:05:14PM -0600, Brooks Boyd wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
Hi all,
during recent months we've reconsidered all comments which we received
from the community about our BIP39 proposal and we tried to meet all
requirements
I remember the wordlist choice getting bikeshedded to death a month ago.
I would just include the wordlist as part of the standard (as a
recommendation) so that fully compliant implementations can correct a
user's typos regardless of the original generator.
Those who don't like it will have to
Because the mnemonic is an encoding of a 128-bit random number using its
hash as a private key (or derived part of one) is not a problem, its just an
alternate alphabet encoding of the random private key.
Not being able to generically understand the checksum. Seems tricky to
solve other than say
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Christophe Biocca
christophe.bio...@gmail.com wrote:
I remember the wordlist choice getting bikeshedded to death a month ago.
I would just include the wordlist as part of the standard (as a
recommendation) so that fully compliant implementations can correct
Hi slush,
Thank you for your new proposal; it seems to be a compromise.
@Christophe Biocca:
If the wordlist becomes part of the standard, then we will run into
problems of collisions once users ask for wordlists in every language.
IMO the right approach is to implement checksums that do not
At least Trezor and bitcoinj (Multibit) seems to be going in this way,
which is 100% of clients which expressed interest in bip39 :-).
slush
The the current spec with TREZOR's wordlist is also implemented by Bits of Proof
16 matches
Mail list logo
