On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this.
>> Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is
>> straightforward, backward compatible fix and I
On 21/04/16 14:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this.
> Could you please tell us your opinion? For me, this is
> straightforward, backward compatible fix and I like it a lot.
> Not sure about the process of changing "Final" BIP though.
Am 21.04.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Eric Lombrozo:
> In practice the probability of this case triggering is on the order of
> 2^-128 or something astronomically tiny. I've been using BIP32 for a few
> years already as have many others...I don't think we've ever had to
> handle this case. Justifiably, ma
On 21/04/16 17:28, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I don't think we've ever had to handle this case.
This is the main problem: we are not sure, because not a lot of software
does this checks. Also even if you do check, it's hard to handle an
exception (you can't always skip - what if the p
In practice the probability of this case triggering is on the order of 2^-128
or something astronomically tiny. I've been using BIP32 for a few years already
as have many others...I don't think we've ever had to handle this case.
Justifiably, many app developers feel like the additional complexi
Sipa, you are probably the most competent to answer this. Could you please
tell us your opinion? For me, this is straightforward, backward compatible
fix and I like it a lot. Not sure about the process of changing "Final" BIP
though.
Slush
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jochen Hoenicke via bitc
