Watson Ladd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-12-05 📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-12-05
📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Mike Koss <mike at coinlab.com> wrote:
>> I've implemented an alternative to the BIP 32 proposal. I wanted a system
>> based on a hierarchical string representation (rather than hierarchy of
>> integers as BIP 32 proposes). For example I name keys like this:
>>
>> [hd1.75491111].store.1. 1D7GM5dkUtxvGeWgn7SYtanBuyj1MD1EZy
>> [hd1.75491111].store.2. 1QAqDbzpNKViGSjVe1XmnGbmZtvz5hM7t1
>> [hd1.75491111].store.3. 14XkSN92QLGeorYPpoVbG87DQhowEx3mFn
>> [hd1.75491111].store.4. 1JLcGdod6Wm33rMZuZZUmAEE6osLhM4QMn
>>
>> First draft of proposal:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/4211704
>
> As Pieter pointed out recently— it's not (realistically) possible to
> blindly iterate through strings. This means your proposal loses the
> backup recoverablity property which is part the point of a
> deterministic wallet: If you have a backup prior to a new string name
> being established you must also have a reliable backup of the string
> as well.
I would like to note that BIP32 and this new proposal have a missing
feature: being able to spend
a coin sent to an address generated by this scheme implies being able
to spend any coin generated
by this scheme.
The easiest deterministic wallet construction is simply to use a
stream cipher to generate random
bytes used as the private keys in a wallet. Hierarchical constructions
do not seem to me to add more,
other then distinguishing transactions by sending to unique addresses,
which could be done by other means.
>
> Of course, if you're backing up the strings then you can also backup a
> map equating the hdwallet indexes to your strings, and in the event of
> a catastrophic loss where you are only left with the original ultimate
> root you lose no coins (only metadata) with the BIP32 scheme. If,
> instead, we have your scheme and the backup of strings is incomplete
> then some or all assigned coin may be lost forever.
>
> Your extended hierarchy of multiplers also makes me uncomfortable.
> BIP32 uses a HMAC in its construction to obtain strongly unstructured
> points.
I read BIP32. And while the multipliers at each level are
unstructured, the ones in the next level are products
of the ones before i.e. we have a multiplication tree with random
looking branches.
Note that the order of the basepoint is prime or a small cofactor
times a prime, so this isn't an issue (usually:
the cofactor could be annoying).
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Mike Koss <mike at coinlab.com> wrote:
>> I've implemented an alternative to the BIP 32 proposal. I wanted a system
>> based on a hierarchical string representation (rather than hierarchy of
>> integers as BIP 32 proposes). For example I name keys like this:
>>
>> [hd1.75491111].store.1. 1D7GM5dkUtxvGeWgn7SYtanBuyj1MD1EZy
>> [hd1.75491111].store.2. 1QAqDbzpNKViGSjVe1XmnGbmZtvz5hM7t1
>> [hd1.75491111].store.3. 14XkSN92QLGeorYPpoVbG87DQhowEx3mFn
>> [hd1.75491111].store.4. 1JLcGdod6Wm33rMZuZZUmAEE6osLhM4QMn
>>
>> First draft of proposal:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/4211704
>
> As Pieter pointed out recently— it's not (realistically) possible to
> blindly iterate through strings. This means your proposal loses the
> backup recoverablity property which is part the point of a
> deterministic wallet: If you have a backup prior to a new string name
> being established you must also have a reliable backup of the string
> as well.
I would like to note that BIP32 and this new proposal have a missing
feature: being able to spend
a coin sent to an address generated by this scheme implies being able
to spend any coin generated
by this scheme.
The easiest deterministic wallet construction is simply to use a
stream cipher to generate random
bytes used as the private keys in a wallet. Hierarchical constructions
do not seem to me to add more,
other then distinguishing transactions by sending to unique addresses,
which could be done by other means.
>
> Of course, if you're backing up the strings then you can also backup a
> map equating the hdwallet indexes to your strings, and in the event of
> a catastrophic loss where you are only left with the original ultimate
> root you lose no coins (only metadata) with the BIP32 scheme. If,
> instead, we have your scheme and the backup of strings is incomplete
> then some or all assigned coin may be lost forever.
>
> Your extended hierarchy of multiplers also makes me uncomfortable.
> BIP32 uses a HMAC in its construction to obtain strongly unstructured
> points.
I read BIP32. And while the multipliers at each level are
unstructured, the ones in the next level are products
of the ones before i.e. we have a multiplication tree with random
looking branches.
Note that the order of the basepoint is prime or a small cofactor
times a prime, so this isn't an issue (usually:
the cofactor could be annoying).
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin