Re: [Bitcoin-development] Detailed gitian build guide

2014-04-03 Thread devrandom
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 07:51 +0200, Wladimir wrote:
 
 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 6:47 AM, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net
 wrote:
 Nice!
 
 I wonder how much of this could be scripted.
 
 
 Everything, probably, using vmbuilder (and/or vagrant as Nick Simpson
 suggests). But that's not the point here. It is to provide exact steps
 that people can follow to get a basic (virtual) machine that they can
 use to do gitian builds.

Understood.
 
 I didn't want to end up with a
 gitian-builder-that-builds-a-gitian-builder :-) The host machine may
 not even have any scripting languages installed (in the case of
 Windows).

Yes, I can see the turtles there.
 
 
 It may be possible to script *some* parts (most of the quoted bash
 script is runnable as script) without automating the entire process,
 but I hope that over time we can make Gitian itself easier to
 use/setup, so that less steps are needed in the first place.

Understood. :)  I would definitely like to see in Gitian any
improvements that make it easier for newcomers to get started.
 
 
 Wladimir
 
 
 

-- 
Miron / devrandom




--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys

2014-04-03 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Thursday, 3 April 2014, at 4:41 pm, Nikita Schmidt wrote:
 I agree with the recently mentioned suggestion to make non-essential
 metadata, namely key fingerprint and degree (M), optional.  Their
 4-byte and 1-byte fields can be added individually at an
 implementation's discretion.  During decoding, the total length will
 determine which fields are included.

The fingerprint field, Hash16(K), is presently specified as a 16-bit field. 
Rationale: There is no need to consume 4 bytes just to allow shares to be 
grouped together. And if someone has more than 100 different secrets, they 
probably have a good system for managing their shares and won't need the hash 
anyway.

 Encoding for the testnet is not specified.

Hmm, is that actually needed?

 Speaking of encoding, is it not wasteful to allocate three different
 application/version bytes just for the sake of always starting with
 'SS'?  It would be OK if it were accepted as a BIP, but merely as a
 de-facto standard it should aim at minimising future chances of
 collision.

I agree on principle, however I think the more user-acceptable behavior is for 
all base58-encoded Shamir shares to begin with a common prefix, such as SS. 
Users are accustomed to relying on the prefix of the base58 encoding to 
understand what the object is: 1 for mainnet pubkey hash, 3 for mainnet 
script hash, 5 for uncompressed private key, P for passphrase-protected 
private key, etc.

 I'd add a clause allowing the use of random coefficients instead of
 deterministic, as long as the implementation guarantees to never make
 another set of shares for the same private key or master seed.

I'm not sure that's necessary, as this is an Informational BIP. Implementations 
are free to ignore it. Shares with randomly selected coefficients would work 
just fine in a share joiner that conforms to the BIP, so I would expect 
implementors to feel free to ignore the deterministic formula and use randomly 
selected coefficients.

 What about using the same P256 prime as for the elliptic curve?  Just
 for consistency's sake.

The initial draft of this BIP used the cyclic order (n) of the generator point 
on the secp256k1 elliptic curve as the modulus. The change to the present 
scheme was actually done for consistency's sake, so all sizes of secret can use 
a consistently defined modulus.

 Also, I'm somewhat inclined towards using the actual x instead of j in
 the encoding.  I find it more direct and straightforward to encode the
 pair (x, y).  And x=0 can denote a special case for future extensions.
  There is no technical reason behind this, it's just for (subjective)
 clarity and consistency.

There is a technical reason for encoding j rather than x[j]: it allows for the 
first 256 shares to be encoded, rather than only the first 255 shares.

If you want a sentinel value reserved for future extensions, then you might 
take notice that 0x is an invalid key fingerprint, along with several other 
values, and also that 0xFF is an unusable value of M−2, as that would imply 
M=257, but the scheme can only encode up to 256 shares, so one would never have 
enough shares to meet the threshold. I considered having the two optional 
fields be mandatory and allowing 0x and 0xFF as redacted field values, 
but I like allowing the shares to be shorter if the optional fields are 
omitted. (Imagine engraving Shamir secret shares onto metal bars by hand with 
an engraving tool. Fewer characters is better!)


--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-03 Thread kjj
Matt Whitlock wrote:
 The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be 
 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.

At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I 
looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format.  As far 
as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates 
ISO 8601 by half a decade.

Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, if 
we desired, adopt a sensible date format here.  The cost to the 
community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen 
people needing to update scripts.  It could even be as simple as one guy 
running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development