Quote from: iddo on May 05, 2013, 04:45:07 PM

[..] it's difficult to keep track of all the posts in this long thread:)

Right

, so why again was this:

Quote from: iddo on May 05, 2013, 04:13:56 PM

Quote from: thanke on May 05, 2013, 09:13:48 AM

After all, I am still in favor of type-2 in the form of (I_L,I_R) := HMAC(c_par,i), k_i := I_L*k_par, c_i := I_R. The two reasons are: 1) it allows something new without breaking anything old, 2) it simplifies the definition.

Doesn't it break type-1 derivations?

Of course, type-1 would be left at (I_L,I_R) := func(cpar,kpar,i).

Quote from: iddo on May 05, 2013, 04:45:07 PM

Suppose that's I'm a user of BIP32 and I wish to re-use some I_L, how could I do it?
It appears that this concern is with regard to a non-issue, because we cannot reuse I_L with BIP32 ? And even if we could, we'd only lose privacy, not security.
I'm not sure whether the speedup that we obtain with the additive variant is significant. If it is, then I guess that it's better to implement the faster version, especially for heavy users such as online wallet servers, e.g. the MtGox wallet. Maybe it'd also be helpful for smartphones etc.
About side-channel attacks, I don't think that there's any significant difference between I_L*k_par and I_L+k_par ?

True, it's a non-issue with BIP32 as it stands, as long as nobody tries to re-use I_L by some non-spec behaviour.
It seems the decisive argument between additive and multiplicative is protection against timing-attacks, probably Pieter can comment on that. If both can be implemented in constant time I would go with multiplicative.