Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message

2013-10-31 Thread Mike Hearn
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > If a node is using priority queued rate limiting for its relaying then > it might "accept" a transaction from you, but have it fall out of its > memory pool (due to higher priority txn arriving, or getting > restarted, etc.) before it ever

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-10-31 Thread slush
Oh, I forgot to one practical aspect; the way how the mnemonic is "mined" in Thomas proposal prevents usage in embedded devices, because difficulty of generating proper mnemonic is simply too high for embedded microcontrollers. Maybe this can be solved somehow by modifying the proposal, but right n

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-10-31 Thread slush
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Thomas Voegtlin wrote: > Indeed, I want to include a version number in the seed phrase because > there are > multiple ways to define the tree structure used with BIP32. It is > certainly too early > to make final decisions on that, or to achieve a common standard

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-10-31 Thread Peter Todd
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:41:27AM +0100, slush wrote: > To be specific, we (in cooperation with / inspired by Timo Hanke) developed > method how to prove that the seed generated by Trezor has been created > using combination of computer-provided entropy and device-provided entropy, > without leaki

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-10-31 Thread slush
Strange, I didn't receive the response from sipa in separate message, so I'll respond to him at first place. Le 26/10/2013 23:30, Pieter Wuille a écrit : > I'm not sure whether we're ready to standardize on something like that > yet, not having established best practices regarding different wallet

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-10-31 Thread Thomas Voegtlin
Indeed, I want to include a version number in the seed phrase because there are multiple ways to define the tree structure used with BIP32. It is certainly too early to make final decisions on that, or to achieve a common standard. Also, I can imagine that bip32 itself might be superseeded in the