{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-27\n📝 Original message:Obviously, SHA256 can't magically generate more entropy out of nothing, it\njust stretches whatever is put in. If your seed was only 32 bits then\nhashing wouldn't save you: every possible private key could easily be\ncalculated in advance.\n\n\nOn Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Kerin \u003cthomas.kerin at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e Isn't the length of the seed arbitrary anyway? Once decoded using whatever\n\u003e mnemonic implementation (electrums, or BIP0039) the bytestream is\n\u003e immediately passed to HMAC-SHA256 to generate the master key. No matter\n\u003e what your initial entropy is, it would be hashed anyway.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Ah, BIP32 allows for a range of entropy sizes and it so happens that they\n\u003e\u003e picked 256 bits instead of 128 bits.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'd have thought that there is a right answer for this. 2^128 should not\n\u003e\u003e be brute forceable, and longer sizes have a cost in terms of making the\n\u003e\u003e seeds harder to write down on paper. So should this be a degree of freedom?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e By the way, I just noticed that greenaddress.it is creating seeds that\n\u003e\u003e\u003e have 24 words instead of 12. Does anyone know what's up with that? They\n\u003e\u003e\u003e claim to be using BIP32 wallets so I wanted to see if they were using the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e default structure and if so, whether bitcoinj was compatible with it\n\u003e\u003e\u003e (before I switch to the one discussed here). But it seems we fall at the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e first hurdle ...\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Thomas Voegtlin \u003cthomasv1 at gmx.de\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Le 27/03/2014 12:30, Marek Palatinus a écrit :\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e Ah, I forget to two things, which should be into the BIP as well:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e a) Gap factor for addresses; as Thomas mentioned, although some\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e software\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e can watch almost unlimited amount of unused addresses, this is serious\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e concern for lightweight or server-based wallets like Electrum or\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e myTREZOR. myTREZOR currently uses gap factor 10, which is (from my\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e experience so far) quite sane for most of users.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Yes, I was planning to increase the number of available unused addresses\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e to 10 or 20 in the bip32 version of Electrum.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Related to this, here is another idea I would like to submit:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Instead of using a \"gap limit\" (maximal number of consecutive unused\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e addresses), I think we should get rid of the topology, and simply count\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e the number of unused addresses since the beginning of the sequence.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Indeed, the topology of the sequence of addresses is of no interest to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e the user. Users often misinterpret \"gap limit\" as the \"number of unused\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e addresses available\", so I think we should just give them what they want\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e :) This is easier to understand, and it makes things more predictable,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e because the wallet will always display the same number of unused\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e addresses (except when it is waiting for confirmations).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140327/2c5954bd/attachment.html\u003e"}