← Back to Bitcoin Improvement Proposals
BIP 38specificationDraft (Some confusion applies: The announcements for this never made it to the list, so it hasn't had public discussion)walletaddresseskey-management

Passphrase-protected private key

BIP: 38 Layer: Applications Title: Passphrase-protected private key

No reviews
Mike Caldwell·Updated Mar 29, 2026·0 reviews·0 attestations·View source
Collections:BIPs — Merged

Specification

  BIP: 38
  Layer: Applications
  Title: Passphrase-protected private key
  Authors: Mike Caldwell 
           Aaron Voisine 
  Comments-Summary: Unanimously Discourage for implementation
  Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0038
  Status: Draft (Some confusion applies: The announcements for this never made it to the list, so it hasn't had public discussion)
  Type: Specification
  Assigned: 2012-11-20
  License: PD

Abstract

A method is proposed for encrypting and encoding a passphrase-protected Bitcoin private key record in the form of a 58-character Base58Check-encoded printable string. Encrypted private key records are intended for use on paper wallets and physical Bitcoins. Each record string contains all the information needed to reconstitute the private key except for a passphrase, and the methodology uses salting and scrypt to resist brute-force attacks.

The method provides two encoding methodologies - one permitting any known private key to be encrypted with any passphrase, and another permitting a shared private key generation scheme where the party generating the final key string and its associated Bitcoin address (such as a physical bitcoin manufacturer) knows only a string derived from the original passphrase, and where the original passphrase is needed in order to actually redeem funds sent to the associated Bitcoin address.

A 32-bit hash of the resulting Bitcoin address is encoded in plaintext within each encrypted key, so it can be correlated to a Bitcoin address with reasonable probability by someone not knowing the passphrase. The complete Bitcoin address can be derived through successful decryption of the key record.

Motivation

The motivation to make this proposal stems from observations of the way physical bitcoins and paper wallets are used.

An issuer of physical bitcoins must be trustworthy and trusted. Even if trustworthy, users are rightful to be skeptical about a third party with theoretical access to take their funds. A physical bitcoin that cannot be compromised by its issuer is always more intrinsically valuable than one that can.

A two-factor physical bitcoin solution is highly useful to individuals and organizations wishing to securely own bitcoins without any risk of electronic theft and without the responsibility of climbing the technological learning curve necessary to produce such an environment themselves. Two-factor physical bitcoins allow a secure storage solution to be put in a box and sold on the open market, greatly enlarging the number of people who are able to securely store bitcoins.

Existing methodologies for creating two-factor physical bitcoins are limited and cumbersome. At the time of this proposal, a user could create their own private key, submit the public key to the physical bitcoin issuer, and then receive a physical bitcoin that must be kept together with some sort of record of the user-generated private key, and finally, must be redeemed through a tool. The fact that the physical bitcoin must be kept together with a user-produced private key negates much of the benefit of the physical bitcoin - the user may as well just print and maintain a private key.

A standardized password-protected private key format makes acquiring and redeeming two-factor physical bitcoins simpler for the user. Instead of maintaining a private key that cannot be memorized, the user may choose a passphrase of their choice. The passphrase may be much shorter than the length of a typical private key, short enough that they could use a label or engraver to permanently commit their passphrase to their physical Bitcoin piece once they have received it. By adopting a standard way to encrypt a private key, we maximize the possibility that they'll be able to redeem their funds in the venue of their choice, rather than relying on an executable redemption tool they may not wish to download.

Password and passphrase-protected private keys enable new practical use cases for sending bitcoins from person to person. Someone wanting to send bitcoins through postal mail could send a password-protected paper wallet and give the recipient the passphrase over the phone or e-mail, making the transfer safe from interception of either channel. A user of paper wallets or Bitcoin banknote-style vouchers ("cash") could carry funded encrypted private keys while leaving a copy at home as an element of protection against accidental loss or theft. A user of paper wallets who leaves bitcoins in a bank vault or safety deposit box could keep the password at home or share it with trusted associates as protection against someone at the bank gaining access to the paper wallets and spending from them. The foreseeable and unforeseeable use cases for password-protected private keys are numerous.

Copyright

This proposal is hereby placed in the public domain.

Rationale

: User story: As a Bitcoin user who uses paper wallets, I would like the ability to add encryption, so that my Bitcoin paper storage can be two factor: something I have plus something I know. : User story: As a Bitcoin user who would like to pay a person or a company with a private key, I do not want to worry that any part of the communication path may result in the interception of the key and theft of my funds. I would prefer to offer an encrypted private key, and then follow it up with the password using a different communication channel (e.g. a phone call or SMS). : User story: (EC-multiplied keys) As a user of physical bitcoins, I would like a third party to be able to create password-protected Bitcoin private keys for me, without them knowing the password, so I can benefit from the physical bitcoin without the issuer having access to the private key. I would like to be able to choose a password whose minimum length and required format does not preclude me from memorizing it or engraving it on my physical bitcoin, without exposing me to an undue risk of password cracking and/or theft by the manufacturer of the item. : User story: (EC-multiplied keys) As a user of paper wallets, I would like the ability to generate a large number of Bitcoin addresses protected by the same password, while enjoying a high degree of security (highly expensive scrypt parameters), but without having to incur the scrypt delay for each address I generate.

Specification

This proposal makes use of the following functions and definitions:

*AES256Encrypt, AES256Decrypt: the simple form of the well-known AES block cipher without consideration for initialization vectors or block chaining. Each of these functions takes a 256-bit key and 16 bytes of input, and deterministically yields 16 bytes of output. *SHA256, a well-known hashing algorithm that takes an arbitrary number of bytes as input and deterministically yields a 32-byte hash. *scrypt: A well-known key derivation algorithm. It takes the following parameters: (string) password, (string) salt, (int) n, (int) r, (int) p, (int) length, and deterministically yields an array of bytes whose length is equal to the length parameter. *ECMultiply: Multiplication of an elliptic curve point by a scalar integer with respect to the secp256k1 elliptic curve. *G, N: Constants defined as part of the secp256k1 elliptic curve. G is an elliptic curve point, and N is a large positive integer. *Base58Check: a method for encoding arrays of bytes using 58 alphanumeric characters commonly used in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Prefix

It is proposed that the resulting Base58Check-encoded string start with a '6'. The number '6' is intended to represent, from the perspective of the user, "a private key that needs something else to be usable" - an umbrella definition that could be understood in the future to include keys participating in multisig transactions, and was chosen with deference to the existing prefix '5' most commonly observed in Wallet Import Format which denotes an unencrypted private key.

It is proposed that the second character ought to give a hint as to what is needed as a second factor, and for an encrypted key requiring a passphrase, the uppercase letter P is proposed.

To keep the size of the encrypted key down, no initialization vectors (IVs) are used in the AES encryption. Rather, suitable values for IV-like use are derived using scrypt from the passphrase and from using a 32-bit hash of the resulting Bitcoin address as salt.

Proposed specification

  • Object identifier prefix: 0x0142 (non-EC-multiplied) or 0x0143 (EC-multiplied). These are constant bytes that appear at the beginning of the Base58Check-encoded record, and their presence causes the resulting string to have a predictable prefix.
  • How the user sees it: 58 characters always starting with '6P'
** Visual cues are present in the third character for visually identifying the EC-multiply and compress flag.
  • Count of payload bytes (beyond prefix): 37
** 1 byte (flagbyte): *** the most significant two bits are set as follows to preserve the visibility of the compression flag in the prefix, as well as to keep the payload within the range of allowable values that keep the "6P" prefix intact. For non-EC-multiplied keys, the bits are 11. For EC-multiplied keys, the bits are 00. *** the bit with value 0x20 when set indicates the key should be converted to a base58check encoded P2PKH bitcoin address using the DER compressed public key format. When not set, it should be a base58check encoded P2PKH bitcoin address using the DER uncompressed public key format. *** the bits with values 0x10 and 0x08 are reserved for a future specification that contemplates using multisig as a way to combine the factors such that parties in possession of the separate factors can independently sign a proposed transaction without requiring that any party possess both factors. These bits must be 0 to comply with this version of the specification. *** the bit with value 0x04 indicates whether a lot and sequence number are encoded into the first factor, and activates special behavior for including them in the decryption process. This applies to EC-multiplied keys only. Must be 0 for non-EC-multiplied keys. *** remaining bits are reserved for future use and must all be 0 to comply with this version of the specification. ** 4 bytes: SHA256(SHA256(expected_bitcoin_address))[0...3], used both for typo checking and as salt **16 bytes: Contents depend on whether EC multiplication is used. **16 bytes: lasthalf: An AES-encrypted key material record (contents depend on whether EC multiplication is used)
  • Range in base58check encoding for non-EC-multiplied keys without compression (prefix 6PR):
** Minimum value: 6PRHv1jg1ytiE4kT2QtrUz8gEjMQghZDWg1FuxjdYDzjUkcJeGdFj9q9Vi (based on 01 42 C0 plus thirty-six 00's) ** Maximum value: 6PRWdmoT1ZursVcr5NiD14p5bHrKVGPG7yeEoEeRb8FVaqYSHnZTLEbYsU (based on 01 42 C0 plus thirty-six FF's)
  • Range in base58check encoding for non-EC-multiplied keys with compression (prefix 6PY):
** Minimum value: 6PYJxKpVnkXUsnZAfD2B5ZsZafJYNp4ezQQeCjs39494qUUXLnXijLx6LG (based on 01 42 E0 plus thirty-six 00's) ** Maximum value: 6PYXg5tGnLYdXDRZiAqXbeYxwDoTBNthbi3d61mqBxPpwZQezJTvQHsCnk (based on 01 42 E0 plus thirty-six FF's)
  • Range in base58check encoding for EC-multiplied keys without compression (prefix 6Pf):
** Minimum value: 6PfKzduKZXAFXWMtJ19Vg9cSvbFg4va6U8p2VWzSjtHQCCLk3JSBpUvfpf (based on 01 43 00 plus thirty-six 00's) ** Maximum value: 6PfYiPy6Z7BQAwEHLxxrCEHrH9kasVQ95ST1NnuEnnYAJHGsgpNPQ9dTHc (based on 01 43 00 plus thirty-six FF's)
  • Range in base58check encoding for EC-multiplied keys with compression (prefix 6Pn):
** Minimum value: 6PnM2wz9LHo2BEAbvoGpGjMLGXCom35XwsDQnJ7rLiRjYvCxjpLenmoBsR (based on 01 43 20 plus thirty-six 00's) ** Maximum value: 6PnZki3vKspApf2zym6Anp2jd5hiZbuaZArPfa2ePcgVf196PLGrQNyVUh (based on 01 43 20 plus thirty-six FF's)

Encryption when EC multiply flag is not used

Encrypting a private key without the EC multiplication offers the advantage that any known private key can be encrypted. The party performing the encryption must know the passphrase.

Encryption steps: # Compute the Bitcoin address (ASCII), and take the first four bytes of SHA256(SHA256()) of it. Let's call this "addresshash". # Derive a key from the passphrase using scrypt #*Parameters: passphrase is the passphrase itself encoded in UTF-8 and normalized using Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC). salt is addresshash from the earlier step, n=16384, r=8, p=8, length=64 (n, r, p are provisional and subject to consensus) #*Let's split the resulting 64 bytes in half, and call them derivedhalf1 and derivedhalf2. # Do AES256Encrypt(block = bitcoinprivkey[0...15] xor derivedhalf1[0...15], key = derivedhalf2), call the 16-byte result encryptedhalf1 # Do AES256Encrypt(block = bitcoinprivkey[16...31] xor derivedhalf1[16...31], key = derivedhalf2), call the 16-byte result encryptedhalf2

The encrypted private key is the Base58Check-encoded concatenation of the following, which totals 39 bytes without Base58 checksum:

  • 0x01 0x42 + flagbyte + salt + encryptedhalf1 + encryptedhalf2
Decryption steps: # Collect encrypted private key and passphrase from user. # Derive derivedhalf1 and derivedhalf2 by passing the passphrase and addresshash into scrypt function. # Decrypt encryptedhalf1 and encryptedhalf2 using AES256Decrypt, merge them to form the encrypted private key. # Convert that private key into a Bitcoin address, honoring the compression preference specified in flagbyte of the encrypted key record. # Hash the Bitcoin address, and verify that addresshash from the encrypted private key record matches the hash. If not, report that the passphrase entry was incorrect.

Encryption when EC multiply mode is used

Encrypting a private key with EC multiplication offers the ability for someone to generate encrypted keys knowing only an EC point derived from the original passphrase and some salt generated by the passphrase's owner, and without knowing the passphrase itself. Only the person who knows the original passphrase can decrypt the private key. A code known as an intermediate code conveys the information needed to generate such a key without knowledge of the passphrase.

This methodology does not offer the ability to encrypt a known private key - this means that the process of creating encrypted keys is also the process of generating new addresses. On the other hand, this serves a security benefit for someone possessing an address generated this way: if the address can be recreated by decrypting its private key with a passphrase, and it's a strong passphrase one can be certain only he knows himself, then he can safely conclude that nobody could know the private key to that address.

The person

[Content truncatedview full spec at source]

Discussion (0 threads)

Loading discussions...