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
|
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 <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WcWT0-0004N3-MS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:54:14 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from [76.96.59.211] (helo=QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WcWSt-0007g8-Gb for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:54:14 +0000
Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44])
by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id swkT1n0020xGWP85BwnSr7; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:47:26 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id swnS1n00A4VnV2P3YwnSy3; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:47:26 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 04:47:26 -0400
Message-ID: <10282678.x5thQUt8hv@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <7A10A6C6-BE84-472B-9205-F5F9E459B5D7@bitsofproof.com>
References: <CAC7yFxSE8-TWPN-kuFiqdPKMDuprbiVJi7-z-ym+AUyA_f-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
<4586234.JVHRmdZYKl@crushinator>
<7A10A6C6-BE84-472B-9205-F5F9E459B5D7@bitsofproof.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
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 [76.96.59.211 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
X-Headers-End: 1WcWSt-0007g8-Gb
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:54:14 -0000
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014, at 10:43 am, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> It is not about taste, but the fact that BIPs are used by many chains.
> Alts are useful for at least for experiments, and I think that the notion of main and testnet is superseeded by a wide choice of chains.
There aren't enough distinct bytes to allow for every altcoin. I believe what they do is their own business and is outside the scope of a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal.
If your argument were valid, then we would also have to apply it to private keys. Why do we bother specifying a separate encoding for Bitcoin testnet private keys? There are so many altcoins, after all.
|
