Published on: 2013-11-08T15:41:00+00:00
In an email exchange, Wladimir raises concerns about the implementation of BIP 0038 in Python. He highlights the lack of clarity regarding the use of flag 0x04 and suggests that it be clarified. Wladimir also points out an error in the encryption process mentioned in the BIP. He notes that the process incorrectly states to split the result into two 16-byte halves instead of two 32-byte halves.Gregory responds to Mike's email regarding a recent change to BIP 0038. Gregory informs Mike that there have been no prior messages about his proposal on the list and no mention of the assignment had been made in the wiki. Gregory had assumed that something similar to what happened with BIP 22 had occurred. He also criticizes the idea of having a wallet with only a single address and mentions Jean-Paul Kogelman's draft proposal, which is based on Caldwell's BIP38 work but with a different encoding scheme that was revised in response to public discussion. Gregory suggests combining efforts to move forward.Mike Caldwell, the proposer of BIP 38, requests that the identity of his original proposal be maintained. He acknowledges that Kogelman's improvements to his proposal may be sufficient to supersede what he originally proposed. However, he wants BIP 38 to still be recognized as an existing proposal to avoid confusion for those who have already chosen to use it. Caldwell also expresses his desire to address some shortcomings in another iteration of BIP 38, including outsourcing computationally expensive steps to minimize user risks, incorporating special-purpose "encrypted minikeys," and implementing a typo check with better privacy.Gregory clarifies to Caldwell that prior messages about his proposal never made it to the list and no mention of the assignment had been made in the wiki. Gregory had assumed that Caldwell had created the BIP document without public discussion, similar to his previous actions with BIP 22. Gregory moved the document out after a complaint about bitcoin-qt not confirming with BIP38, but later moved it back when Caldwell informed him that it had been assigned/announced. Gregory believes that having a wallet that only supports a single address is poor form and suggests collaborating with Jean-Paul Kogelman's draft proposal, which is based on Caldwell's BIP38 work but has a different encoding scheme revised in response to public discussion.The author of BIP 0038 seeks help to confirm a recent change made on the Wiki regarding their proposal. They state that the number was assigned in November 2012 but the change suggests otherwise. The author expresses concern that their messages may not be reaching the list and requests assistance in pushing forward the proposal. BIP 0038 enables the creation of password-protected private keys and is already being implemented by various entities such as BitAddress.org, Bit2Factor.org, and Mycelium. The author emphasizes that reassigning the number after it has been established for nearly a year would be confusing, particularly on procedural grounds.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T06:17:51.280494+00:00