Author: Jean-Paul Kogelman 2013-11-16 03:09:07
Published on: 2013-11-16T03:09:07+00:00
The author of the post states that there have been no changes to their proposal since it was last discussed on the list during the BIP procedure discussions. The proposal has three changes: expanding the salt to include a date and checksum, renaming the 'master seed' to 'root key', adding user-selectable KDF parameters encoded in the prefix, and adding a two-byte creation date field, which expands the prefix to three bytes. The author notes that the biggest difference between their proposal and BIP38 is that BIP38 allows for a third party to generate the encrypted private key and confirmation code from a passphrase code, while their proposal encrypts a random value fed into HMAC-SHA512 and includes a partial hash of the root address, making this not possible. The post ends with a question about whether this proposal could replace BIP38 and what limitations would prevent it from doing so.
Updated on: 2023-06-07T14:07:11.049679+00:00