bitcoin/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-05-26 12:10:14 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Addition of 3 comments

Greg Tonoski 2023-09-13 13:50:50 +02:00
parent 7101c6b4ba
commit f1d6702c6c
1 changed files with 9 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
Comments:BIP-0039.md

@ -21,3 +21,12 @@ BIP39 requires a minimum 128-bits of entropy. Some people are suggesting this me
The lack of versioning is a serious design flaw in this proposal. On this basis alone I would recommend against use of this proposal. The general design is a thinly disguised brainwallet. Experience with user behavior shows that the user of user passphrases is more or less unconditionally unsafe and yet very attractive to users. If this proposal is implemented it should not be implemented without the checksum enforced. Without it this proposal is an attractive nuisance which has directly caused funds loss.-- Greg Maxwell 2017-03-14
# Alternative binary-to-word encodings
There are alternative binary-to-word encodings, e.g. PGP word list (a.k.a biometric Word List), EEF Word Lists (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/new-wordlists-random-passphrases), RFC-1760 2048 words (a.k.a. S/KEY 6-Words ). There aren't adventages and disadvantages of BIP-39 in comparison to the alternatives described. --Greg Tonoski, 2023-09-13
# Inflexibility: entropy of 128, 160, 192, 224, 256 bit length limit is imposed instead of accepting any length (between 128-256).
--Greg Tonoski, 2023-09-13
# Complexity: SHA-256 calculation may be avoided and separated
Are there any benefits of SHA-256-derived checksum requirement? User ends up in the same situation if they input incorrect words - irrespectively of the checksum appended. Typing errors are not prevented. --Greg Tonoski, 2023-09-13