Jean-Paul Kogelman [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-11-16 📝 Original message:I've made no changes since ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-11-16
📝 Original message: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 + parameters, encoded in the prefix.
22-07-2013 - Added 2 byte creation date field, as a result, the prefix is expanded to 3 bytes.

The biggest difference between this proposal and BIP38 is that BIP38 allows a 3rd party to generate the encrypted private key + confirmation code from a passphrase code. Since this proposal is about encrypting a random value that's fed into HMAC-SHA512 and the presence of a partial hash of the root address, that's not possible.




>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678
>
> Greetings. Any recent progress on this?
>
> Do we believe this proposal can replace BIP38? If not, what are the
> limitations that would prevent it from doing so?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131115/4376a583/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131115/4376a583/attachment.sig>;