Merry Christmas everyone!
I've updated the proposal.
I've changed the checksum to be a double SHA256 of the private key instead of
the public address string and I've added support for 3rd party KDF computation.
The full proposal with updated test vectors lives here:
https://bitcointalk.org/ind
I've made no changes since the last time I've mentioned it here on the list
(when the BIP procedures were being discussed).
The last changes are:
01-10-2013 - Expanded the salt to be prefix + date + checksum and renamed
'master seed' to 'root key'.
24-07-2013 - Added user selectable KDF + para
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman
wrote:
>
> I added a 2 byte 'weeks since 2013-01-01' field and updated the prefixes,
> ranges and test vectors.
>
> The updated proposal lives here:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678
Greetings. Any recent progress on this?
Do we
I added a 2 byte 'weeks since 2013-01-01' field and updated the prefixes, ranges and test vectors.The updated proposal lives here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678Cheers,jpOn Jul 22, 2013, at 06:14 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:This isn't usable for SPV wallets unless it has a birthday in it.
Hi Mike,
I had a similar request on the forums. I suggested adding either a 2 byte
'weeks since genesis' or 'months since genesis', but starting from spec birth
works too. Would either of those work for you?
jp
On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:14 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> This isn't usable for SPV walle
This isn't usable for SPV wallets unless it has a birthday in it. Otherwise
you either need to scan the entire chain (slow) or find a fully indexed
copy of the block chain (expensive, more centralised). Just add a UNIX time
as an extra 4 bytes, or if you want to save a few characters then use a
uin
Hi everyone,I'm looking for feedback on the proposal below.Kind regards,Jean-Paul---BIP: Title: Base58 encoded HD Wallet master seed with optional encryptionAuthor: Jean-Paul KogelmanStatus: DraftType: InformationalCreated: 17-07-2013AbstractThis proposal describes a method for encoding and optiona
Hi Jeremy,The main reason is to stick as close to BIP 0038 as possible, allowing implementers to reuse existing code paths. This proposal and BIP 0032 don't really put any restrictions on content of the seed itself (as can be seen in test vector 1).jpOn Jul 19, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Jeremy Spilman wr
I do, but it's currently not in shippable form. Would the encoding / decoding functions suffice?jpOn Jul 19, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Andreas M. Antonopoulos" wrote:Jean-Paul,Very interesting. I have a beta BIP0038 compliant paper wallet and I'm working on BIP0032 paper wallets at the moment. This is d
9 matches
Mail list logo
