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

2015-03-17 Thread devrandom
On 2015-03-12 03:28 AM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: 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

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] 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
2015 06:51:37 -0500 From: nei...@thecodefactory.org To: thashizn...@yahoo.com.au CC: Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum 2.0 has been tagged Ok, I see your point here, and I was referring to rebuilding from entropy -- which as you noted

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

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

2015-03-11 Thread Thomas Voegtlin
Thanks Mike, and sorry to answer a bit late; it has been a busy couple of weeks. You are correct, a BIP39 seed phrase will not work in Electrum, and vice versa. It is indeed unfortunate. However, I believe BIP39 should not be followed, because it reproduces two mistakes I did when I designed the

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

2015-03-11 Thread Mike Hearn
Sigh. The wallet words system is turning into kind of a mess. I thought the word list is in fact not a fixed part of the spec, because the entropy is a hash of the words. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. The main problem regular SPV wallets have with BIP39 is that there is no birth

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

2015-03-11 Thread Jim
The wallet words system isn't perfect for sure but it does help the user in two main ways: 1) Assuming wallet devs ensure forward compatibility for _their_ wallet the user knows they can recover their bitcoins using the same wallet software in case of a Bad Thing Happening. 2) To an imperfect

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

2015-03-11 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ricardo Filipe ricardojdfil...@gmail.com wrote: i guess you look at the glass half full :) even though what you say is true, we should aim for wallets not to require those instructions, by standardizing these things in BIPs. let's hope bitcoin doesn't fail in

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

2015-03-11 Thread Ricardo Filipe
i guess you look at the glass half full :) even though what you say is true, we should aim for wallets not to require those instructions, by standardizing these things in BIPs. let's hope bitcoin doesn't fail in standards as our industries have in the past... 2015-03-11 19:04 GMT+00:00 Jim

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

2015-03-11 Thread Aaron Voisine
I'm not convinced that wallet seed interoperability is such a great thing. There is a wide variability in the quality and security level of wallet implementations and platforms. Each new device and wallet software a user types their seed into increases their attack surface and exposure to flaws.

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

2015-03-11 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:50 PM, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote: That said, I do agree that mnemonic phrases should be portable, and find it unfortunate that the ecosystem is failing to standardize on phrase handling. The fact remains that there are several apparently unresolvable

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

2015-03-11 Thread Mike Hearn
I'd like to offer that the best practice for the shared wallet use case should be multi-device multi-sig. Sure. But in practice people will want to have a pool of spending money that they can spend when they are out and about, and also with one click from their web browser on their primary

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

2015-03-11 Thread Thy Shizzle
Right you are! I saw Thomas's email about Electrum 2.0 not supporting BIP39. It seems he had the idea that the wordlist was a strict requirement yet it is not, it is unfortunate that Electrum did not go the route of BIP39. The wordlist is irrelevant and merely used to help build mnemonics. Also

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

2015-03-11 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:41 AM, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote: I think there are some important advantages to not being forced to use the old wallet to send coins when switching wallets. The three I can think of right now are: maintaining transaction history, Just loading a key

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

2015-03-11 Thread Mike Hearn
Users will want to have wallets shared between devices, it's as simple as that, especially for mobile/desktop wallets. Trying to stop them from doing that by making things gratuitously incompatible isn't the right approach: they'll just find workarounds or wallet apps will learn how to import

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

2015-03-11 Thread Thy Shizzle
That's disappointing the Electrum 2.0 doesn't use BIP39. From my interpretation of BIP39, wordlists DO NOT REQUIRE to be fixed between wallet providers. There is some recommendations regarding the wordlists to help with things such as predictive text, so mobile apps can easily predict the word

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

2015-03-11 Thread devrandom
On 2015-03-11 05:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:50 PM, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote: That said, I do agree that mnemonic phrases should be portable, and find it unfortunate that the ecosystem is failing to standardize on phrase handling. The fact

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

2015-03-11 Thread slush
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: - Electrum v2 with a version number but no date - myTREZOR with no version and no date and BIP44 key derivation. Some seeds I believe are now being generated with 24 words instead of 12. - MultiBit HD with no

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

2015-03-11 Thread Thy Shizzle
Yes I agree with this sentiment. As for the version, don't forget we can kinda brute force our way to determine a version, because lets say there is 10 versions, we can generate the seed for all 10 versions and then check to see which seed was in use (has transacted) and then use that seed. If

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

2015-03-11 Thread Aaron Voisine
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Thy Shizzle thashizn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: BIP39 is beautiful. meh... the fact that you can't derive the seed phrase from the wallet seed, and that the password key stretching is so weak as to be ineffectual security theater bugs me. Feels like a pretty big

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

2015-03-11 Thread Thy Shizzle
 I agree that it's true that a static wordlist is required once people have started using BIP39 for anything real and changing the word lists will invalidate any existing mnemonics ^ This is incorrect I think Neill, the reason is that the only thing that happens when you change the wordlist is

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

2015-03-11 Thread Neill Miller
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:16:38AM +, Thy Shizzle wrote: That's disappointing the Electrum 2.0 doesn't use BIP39. Agreed, but I don't know the full background on this. Changing the wordlist in the future has ZERO effect on derived seed, whatever mnemonic you provide will always generate

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

2015-03-02 Thread Mike Hearn
Congrats Thomas! Glad to see Electrum 2 finally launch. * New seed derivation method (not compatible with BIP39). Does this mean a 12 words wallet created by Electrum won't work if imported into some other wallet that supports BIP39? Vice versa? This seems unfortunate. I guess if seeds are

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

2015-03-02 Thread Jim
Great to see Electrum 2.0 tagged ! It's been a long road I know. Congratulations to ThomasV and all the other Electrum contributors. :-) Jim -- http://bitcoin-solutions.co.uk On Mon, Mar 2, 2015, at 03:37 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: Congrats Thomas! Glad to see Electrum 2 finally launch. *

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

2015-03-01 Thread Andreas Schildbach
Congrats on the release! Electrum is a very nice wallet. On 03/01/2015 04:23 PM, Thomas Voegtlin wrote: Dear Bitcoin devs, I just tagged version 2.0 of Electrum: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/tree/2.0 The electrum.org website will be updated later today. The release notes are a