📅 Original date posted:2015-03-12
📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> For an emergency transition the user is probably better off with an
> explicit unstructured mass private key export, and a sweep function;
> and guaranteeing compatibility with that is much easier; and because
> it moves funds in one direction there is much less chance of going
> from secure to insecure.
I haven't looked at the existing sweep implementations, but it would
be unfortunate if sweep functions were not available that create at
least the same number of keys, or possibly more, for the purposes of
sweeping. I suppose there are different levels of emergency, where
perhaps you want to sweep all at once in a single transaction and lose
out on (already nebulous) privacy benefits. I say nebulous because
broadcasting a bunch of transactions all at the same time during the
sweep can compromise privacy even when the transactions have no common
ancestor outputs.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vt…jsjpg
2023-06-07 15:31:30
in reply to nevent1q…pn6f
Author Public Key
npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpgPublished at
2023-06-07 15:31:30Event JSON
{
"id": "ad1aef04d83370477ee1443ac05523b947eff125d0db76af6218530de0437c4b",
"pubkey": "62ddcb547224b421822b62845fb1bbd77c838b924bd022814cfcbe25b7a07475",
"created_at": 1686151890,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bf192ab1459041905386f8a0c7782f07de04af2932326a4e49fe0d6ce14ed93c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"857541e1615af1ea916aa5f4eafeba3c2f34c93fc26c771ec6562d846e85602c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-12\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e For an emergency transition the user is probably better off with an\n\u003e explicit unstructured mass private key export, and a sweep function;\n\u003e and guaranteeing compatibility with that is much easier; and because\n\u003e it moves funds in one direction there is much less chance of going\n\u003e from secure to insecure.\n\nI haven't looked at the existing sweep implementations, but it would\nbe unfortunate if sweep functions were not available that create at\nleast the same number of keys, or possibly more, for the purposes of\nsweeping. I suppose there are different levels of emergency, where\nperhaps you want to sweep all at once in a single transaction and lose\nout on (already nebulous) privacy benefits. I say nebulous because\nbroadcasting a bunch of transactions all at the same time during the\nsweep can compromise privacy even when the transactions have no common\nancestor outputs.\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507",
"sig": "d7e75a8db23636f8fd7e688726ea662d622c97a1afb60016b12669f695ea7d6c49e38ce9f7d5a8c5519999a7a870bd5a58d1d8c0565a22bedee70f480f1e260b"
}