Nicolas Bacca [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2016-08-17 to 2016-08-18
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:52:54

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-08-17
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any ECC-enabled smart-cards that can sign the specific
> curve
> that Bitcoin uses, not to mention the fact that those smartcards generally
> only
> speak higher level protocols than raw signature generation, precluding the
> signing of bitcoin transactions.
>
any Java Card supporting ECC can sign on user supplied Weierstrass curve
parameters - you can find a good shopping list at
http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xsvenda/jcsupport.html (look for ALG_ECDSA_SHA256 on
javacard.crypto.signature). The NXP JCOP platform (found in Yubico Neo) is
a popular choice, and then you can add your own custom logic for validation.
--
Nicolas Bacca | CTO, Ledger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160817/2502add3/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:52:54

- reply

2023-06-07 17:52:52

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-08-18
📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> > I have some experience with hardware wallet development and its
> > integration and I know it's a mess. But it is too early to define such
> > rigid standards yet. Also, TREZOR concept (device as a server and the
> > primary source of workflow management) goes directly against your
> > proposal of wallet software as an workflow manager. So it is clear NACK
> > for me.
>
> The current question – as already mentioned – is we ACK to work together
> on a signing protocol or if we NACK this before we even have started.
>
ACK for Ledger. What's necessary to sign a transaction is well known, I
don't see how driving any hardware wallet from the wallet itself or from a
third party daemon implementing that URL scheme would make any difference,
other than providing better devices interoperability, as well as easier
maintenance and update paths for the wallets.
--
Nicolas Bacca | CTO, Ledger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160818/cac3d457/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:52:52

- reply

2023-06-07 17:52:49

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-08-17
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Conclusion:
> ===========
> * Non of the points convinced me that there is a better alternative to
> the proposed URI scheme interaction (please tell me if I'm stubborn).
>
I'd also agree with this - and it's convenient to test against simulators /
mocks.
--
Nicolas Bacca | CTO, Ledger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160817/62fc71e9/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:52:49

- reply