Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach
Thanks Thomas, for sharing your experience! I'd like know why you think it's a problem that BIP43 is tied to BIP32? I understand we all agreed at least on the BIP32-derivation spec (excluding the BIP32-hierarchy spec)?

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Thomas Voegtlin
Hi Andreas, I don't think it's a problem that BIP43 is tied to BIP32. What I don't like is that you have to explore branches of the derivation tree, in order to know if there is a wallet. As a result, it is not possible for the software to give a negative answer, like this wallet is empty,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach
For reasonably skilled users your points are valid, but I'm sure you also – like me – encountered the kind of user who has absolutely no clue but thinks he understands. S/he will ignore warnings and run into troubles. This generates a huge amount of support cases and likely tears about lost coins.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach
Thy, your message threading is broken. Can you make sure your mail program uses the correct message ID when replying? -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach
That doesn't work for mobile wallets, because we need to consider the offline case. To fix this, we'd need to extend BIP70 to tell the merchant where to forward the half-signed transaction to. Then again I'm not sure if we want that, for privacy reasons. In any case, practical multisig is still a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach
On 03/12/2015 01:11 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: Ultimately, the most fundamental compatibility is guaranteed: you can always send your funds to another wallet. This always works and guarantees that you are never locked in to a single wallet. It is well tested and cannot drive any software in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP32 Index Randomisation

2015-03-12 Thread Gregory Maxwell
This seems overly complicated to me, unless I'm missing something. Instead, I think you should just give the server the master pubkey P only without the chaincode. Then when you transact you generate the address in whatever manner you like and tell the server the scalar value iL which the user

[Bitcoin-development] BIP32 Index Randomisation

2015-03-12 Thread Matias Alejo Garcia
Hello everyone, We are working on bitcore-wallet-server (BWS), a HD multisig wallet 'facilitator'. We have a couple of questions regarding BIP32 path usage, and we would love to have feedback from you before moving forward. Currently the BWS instances hold the set of extended public keys of the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Mike Hearn
b) Creation date is just a short-term hack. I agree, but we need things to be easy in the short term as well as the long term :) The long term solution is clearly to have the 12 word seed be an encryption key for a wallet backup with all associated metadata. We're heading in that direction

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Natanael
Den 12 mar 2015 19:52 skrev Andreas Schildbach andr...@schildbach.de: I'm afraid this will never fly. Wallets are just too different and that's a good thing! For example, by design choice Bitcoin Wallet and bitcoinj doesn't support multiple accounts. How would it ever import wallets from

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Natanael
Den 12 mar 2015 17:48 skrev Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net: b) Creation date is just a short-term hack. I agree, but we need things to be easy in the short term as well as the long term :) The long term solution is clearly to have the 12 word seed be an encryption key for a wallet backup with

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Andreas Schildbach
On 03/12/2015 07:27 PM, Natanael wrote: Den 12 mar 2015 17:48 skrev Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net mailto:m...@plan99.net: b) Creation date is just a short-term hack. I agree, but we need things to be easy in the short term as well as the long term :) The long term solution is clearly to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Bryan Bishop
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: For an emergency transition the user is probably better off with an explicit unstructured mass private key export, and a sweep function; and guaranteeing compatibility with that is much easier; and because it moves

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Thy Shizzle
@Neill, Indeed supplying entropy is necessary for testing etc, that's the main reason why I put this in my .NET implementation, the test vectors require us to supply entropy and build the mnemonic from the supplied wordlist and you are correct that changes to the word list will null and void

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged

2015-03-12 Thread Neill Miller
Ok, I see your point here, and I was referring to rebuilding from entropy -- which as you noted is not a real world usage. It is a useful implementation test though and at the very least the existing test vectors would need to be regenerated with each word list change. I recently added BIP39 to

[Bitcoin-development] Broken Threading

2015-03-12 Thread Thy Shizzle
Yes apologies for the broken threading, it was the result of me auto forwarding between mail providers etc. To fix this issue I have created this new dedicated outlook account (thyshiz...@outlook.com) that I shall use for all my subscriptions here and I am unsubscribing the yahoo address. This

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Testnet3

2015-03-12 Thread Thy Shizzle
Strangely enough, it has started to work properly and I didn't even touch my code just had it sitting there in the loop/ping circuit it was performing and capturing with wireshark.that is quite odd! Hi, so I have my .NET node communicating on the P2P network just fine, so I figured as I'll