Pavol Rusnak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-10-21 📝 Original message:On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-10-21
📝 Original message:On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, Mem Wallet wrote:
> communication. To address gmaxwell's criticism, I'd like to also
> follow up with a proposed change to BIP44, such that a structured
> wallet would also include a series of identity keys, both addresses
> which will be used for signing, and public keys which would be used
> as destinations for encrypted messages.
I don't know what criticism it was, but I feel that another BIP than
BIP44 should be created to describe which HD paths should be used for ECIES.
> If anyone is familiar with ECIES and would be interested, there is a
> working implementation at http://memwallet.info/btcmssgs.html,
> which also includes this whitepaper:
That looks great! I already implemented Electrum's way of ECIES into
TREZOR firmware, but yours version seems much more complete, so I am
inclined to throw it away and use your implementation.
Have you thought about pushing this as a new BIP (different one than I
mention above)? I think it's important to have it reviewed and
standardized ASAP.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol Rusnak <stick at gk2.sk>
📝 Original message:On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, Mem Wallet wrote:
> communication. To address gmaxwell's criticism, I'd like to also
> follow up with a proposed change to BIP44, such that a structured
> wallet would also include a series of identity keys, both addresses
> which will be used for signing, and public keys which would be used
> as destinations for encrypted messages.
I don't know what criticism it was, but I feel that another BIP than
BIP44 should be created to describe which HD paths should be used for ECIES.
> If anyone is familiar with ECIES and would be interested, there is a
> working implementation at http://memwallet.info/btcmssgs.html,
> which also includes this whitepaper:
That looks great! I already implemented Electrum's way of ECIES into
TREZOR firmware, but yours version seems much more complete, so I am
inclined to throw it away and use your implementation.
Have you thought about pushing this as a new BIP (different one than I
mention above)? I think it's important to have it reviewed and
standardized ASAP.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol Rusnak <stick at gk2.sk>