📅 Original date posted:2013-11-16
📝 Original message:I've made no changes since the last time I've mentioned it here on the list (when the BIP procedures were being discussed).
The last changes are:
01-10-2013 - Expanded the salt to be prefix + date + checksum and renamed 'master seed' to 'root key'.
24-07-2013 - Added user selectable KDF + parameters, encoded in the prefix.
22-07-2013 - Added 2 byte creation date field, as a result, the prefix is expanded to 3 bytes.
The biggest difference between this proposal and BIP38 is that BIP38 allows a 3rd party to generate the encrypted private key + confirmation code from a passphrase code. Since this proposal is about encrypting a random value that's fed into HMAC-SHA512 and the presence of a partial hash of the root address, that's not possible.
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678
>
> Greetings. Any recent progress on this?
>
> Do we believe this proposal can replace BIP38? If not, what are the
> limitations that would prevent it from doing so?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131115/4376a583/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131115/4376a583/attachment.sig>;
Jean-Paul Kogelman [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sa…8y304
2023-06-07 15:09:45
in reply to nevent1q…m63g
Author Public Key
npub1sa86gng3pvs3jgyt5majwcrhn8ck5qxgy9pjqxkh79u638cd7dys28y304Published at
2023-06-07 15:09:45Event JSON
{
"id": "a48e13e537772ec645a4c45662e48720b8c404997953a7b1c9ce6fc40f4f27eb",
"pubkey": "874fa44d110b2119208ba6fb27607799f16a00c82143201ad7f179a89f0df349",
"created_at": 1686150585,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9e1a2c0f63006aeba1aeda6b5d64efa604469f667b8cd7100f3fa6412ae5fbcc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8987cf2c06f3c32aa5f1553aa9b129a8b8ebdb75bd4edc3b40063f5e4f543f72",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-11-16\n📝 Original message:I've made no changes since the last time I've mentioned it here on the list (when the BIP procedures were being discussed).\n\nThe last changes are:\n\n01-10-2013 - Expanded the salt to be prefix + date + checksum and renamed 'master seed' to 'root key'.\n24-07-2013 - Added user selectable KDF + parameters, encoded in the prefix.\n22-07-2013 - Added 2 byte creation date field, as a result, the prefix is expanded to 3 bytes.\n\nThe biggest difference between this proposal and BIP38 is that BIP38 allows a 3rd party to generate the encrypted private key + confirmation code from a passphrase code. Since this proposal is about encrypting a random value that's fed into HMAC-SHA512 and the presence of a partial hash of the root address, that's not possible.\n\n\n\n\n\u003e\u003e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678\n\u003e \n\u003e Greetings. Any recent progress on this?\n\u003e \n\u003e Do we believe this proposal can replace BIP38? If not, what are the\n\u003e limitations that would prevent it from doing so?\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131115/4376a583/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131115/4376a583/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6b61d6fe30f9804b1bde48c6d7ec7ae75b4f38252b32c283ac4a393658408ca0283f810531433a242afc9e5d411338a780f825f7690ecd942264e6b96ba31155"
}