1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>) id 1VZmSk-0007Rn-H6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:50:22 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of swipeclock.com
designates 64.95.72.244 as permitted sender)
client-ip=64.95.72.244; envelope-from=mcaldwell@swipeclock.com;
helo=mxout.myoutlookonline.com;
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com ([64.95.72.244])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VZmSj-0000D3-37
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:50:22 +0000
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFD88BE735
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:50:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan
Received: from HUB023.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F328BE653
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:50:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MAILR023.mail.lan ([10.110.18.122]) by HUB023.mail.lan
([10.110.17.23]) with mapi; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:50:14 -0400
From: Mike Caldwell <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:50:10 -0400
Thread-Topic: BIP 38
Thread-Index: Ac7Rsu9HbXD/AZodT+GOXEAigqKqVg==
Message-ID: <B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5D998989775B@MAILR023.mail.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5D998989775BMAILR023maill_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [64.95.72.244 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1VZmSj-0000D3-37
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 38
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:50:22 -0000
--_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5D998989775BMAILR023maill_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey everyone,
I have noticed that there was a recent change to BIP 0038 (Password-Protect=
ed Private Key) on the Wiki, which is a proposal I wrote in late 2012. Gre=
gory, it looks to me as though you have made this change, and I'm hoping fo=
r your help here. The change suggests that the number was never assigned, =
and that there has been no discussion regarding the proposal on this list.
I had this number assigned by Amir Taaki in November of 2012, consistent wi=
th what I understood the procedure to be at the time by reading BIP 0001 on=
the Wiki.
First off, I want to confirm that when I send to the list, that there isn't=
a technical reason it's not getting to everybody. I believe I most recent=
ly mentioned BIP 38 to this list on August 17, 2013. (EDIT: seems my prior =
messages, including an earlier revision of this message, have not made it t=
o the list)
Secondly, in the case that it is deemed that this has never been properly s=
ubmitted, discussed, or pushed forward, I'd like to propose that this happe=
n, and request help with the formalities where I'm lacking.
I believe BIP 38 is a valuable proposal that is seeing real-world use. BIP=
38 allows people to create private keys (including paper wallets) protecte=
d by a password, and also allows one party to select the password for paper=
wallets to be created by another party.
Real-world use includes a working implementation at BitAddress.org, one at =
Bit2Factor.org, implementation by Mycelium, and others. Also, others are i=
nformally using it as a sort of abbreviated escrow scheme where a buyer and=
seller agree on the buyer maintaining control over the release of funds. =
In short, it would be terribly confusing to reassign the number BIP 38 afte=
r already having had an established meaning for the better part of the year=
, particularly on what appears to be procedural grounds.
Mike
--_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5D998989775BMAILR023maill_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=
=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Micros=
oft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal>Hey everyone,<o:=
p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>=
I have noticed that there was a recent change to BIP 0038 (Password-Protect=
ed Private Key) on the Wiki, which is a proposal I wrote in late 2012. =
; Gregory, it looks to me as though you have made this change, and I’=
m hoping for your help here. The change suggests that the number was =
never assigned, and that there has been no discussion regarding the proposa=
l on this list.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>I had this number assigned by Amir Taaki in November of 2=
012, consistent with what I understood the procedure to be at the time by r=
eading BIP 0001 on the Wiki.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> =
</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>First off, I want to confirm that when I sen=
d to the list, that there isn’t a technical reason it’s not get=
ting to everybody. I believe I most recently mentioned BIP 38 to this=
list on August 17, 2013. (EDIT: seems my prior messages, including an earl=
ier revision of this message, have not made it to the list)<o:p></o:p></p><=
p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Secondly, in =
the case that it is deemed that this has never been properly submitted, dis=
cussed, or pushed forward, I’d like to propose that this happen, and =
request help with the formalities where I’m lacking.<o:p></o:p></p><p=
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>I believe BIP =
38 is a valuable proposal that is seeing real-world use. BIP 38 allow=
s people to create private keys (including paper wallets) protected by a pa=
ssword, and also allows one party to select the password for paper wallets =
to be created by another party.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nb=
sp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Real-world use includes a working impleme=
ntation at BitAddress.org, one at Bit2Factor.org, implementation by Myceliu=
m, and others. Also, others are informally using it as a sort of abbr=
eviated escrow scheme where a buyer and seller agree on the buyer maintaini=
ng control over the release of funds. In short, it would be terribly =
confusing to reassign the number BIP 38 after already having had an establi=
shed meaning for the better part of the year, particularly on what appears =
to be procedural grounds.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o=
:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Mike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&n=
bsp;</o:p></p></div></body></html>=
--_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5D998989775BMAILR023maill_--
|
