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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABEC5BCC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 02:09:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com
[209.85.212.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C1B126
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 02:09:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so55433783wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 05 Sep 2015 19:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Ue/ONBjfdAv7WT55pMVXVlBXUFlxK0JjbhJ3fZ98rac=;
b=KP9s2xGTwEjsBo/90GH6wQm+GH5r023G+Ki4ZJK1BG4e6EabZfifp/PuOmjIe/I8Bl
udn9Lf0O6XlZI7F4+g8dPwhOZgBj6GyXIVr3tNjESmRxhs40ittyTbuVY0IJJV0NVVgZ
FOT4nNodj/W58FMHsB5IOAE2gAf3a+9t7mQiEGNd6mGc2Rd32qZQaT86zgVNlZydiDbI
mI+sylWnuUpHmcc+DuqdrHwNwWlSInv6BjSWGlvb1w6G5HNg124a4X/rQafbsnFw1Yfo
H20p+isH8e1JRdfEvNmLIgk8YJ7ss34gW1qNI7brHwKtaCuLwiyyZr/mnzBQcbYXH/zq
64bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkdQDhU3tS7OGuBHYVa7l3Z2xLBrxWeDlZbceRwtMlSQ4hqd7gTHAxWU0+3ZxPM+FbKRj3r
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.105.74 with SMTP id gk10mr20724469wib.92.1441505392522;
Sat, 05 Sep 2015 19:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.37.5 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANOOu=9Wn3kVC8eVQWLhMZpDKyVQ5Aus1=b-TsY=Ce9oud0xHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHabJ+N3Tr5FtStH6Msmj3d8EsvjeTEV6FhSEiizLVs=5ZvCfw@mail.gmail.com>
<201509040006.06430.luke@dashjr.org>
<55E9D980.5020901@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
<CABm2gDo7w9mSEDZ2Qf4i79HpgOQQjr2+Cyif4xbt=TKyDkvPdg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANOOu=9Wn3kVC8eVQWLhMZpDKyVQ5Aus1=b-TsY=Ce9oud0xHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 04:09:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDorG0_e_1wZ6CNafA6LqDF89-M_FNt35Uik-pBCssoL4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on
BIP-43
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 02:09:54 -0000
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Christophe Biocca
<christophe.biocca@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will point out that the current situation is not an accident:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=3D%E2%9C%93&q=3D44 is a great
> place to get some context for what happened. I believe you can also
> find the other half of this discussion on the mailing list archives.
>
> The cointypes being simple integers was how the code worked as shipped
> (in the trezor), so changing the semantics after the fact wasn't a
> possibility.
>
> The BIP repository didn't want to constantly deal with updates
> unrelated to Bitcoin proper, so a decision was made to move that part
> of the standard to a repository willing to handle it.
This is in fact useful. The centralized registries themselves are fine
provided that we don't rely on having only one of them or in them
having the same values for the same chains.
Trezor can maintain its own too.
Future versions of Trezor could support full chain IDs instead of
these integers (or keep using these integers forever, whatever they
chose to do).
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 11:17:52 AM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-=
dev wrote:
>> The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not:
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registere=
d_c
>> oin_types
>>
>> It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead =
of
>> having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to
>> maintain competing registries.
>>
>> Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the ch=
ain
>> ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a
>> registry in the first place.
>
> No, because different chains may very well use the same genesis block.
Can you read my reasoning here?
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/01086=
1.html
What I propose is retro-compatible, even for carelessly designed
chains (that allowed pre-mining) like FTC.
And provides securely unique IDs that don't require a centralized registry.
Maybe I should start a Chain IDs BIP...
|
