[Bitcoin-development] Anyone using bitcoind that needs RPC bound to interface? [testing needed]
A while ago I created a patch to make it possible to bind the RPC port to a specific address or even multiple address/port pairs. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3695 I'm fairly confident that it works, but it cannot hurt if some people that need this functionality tested it before merge. Test results from normal setups as well as weird corner cases (IPv4+IPv6, VPNs, ...) are welcome. Regards, Wladimir -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:07:04PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: Though I am loathe to go back and redesign this part of BIP 70 so soon after we shipped v1, it seems to me like the refund feature may be hard to implement on phones if there's no time limit for when you can receive a refund. Otherwise a wallet has to be looking out for refunds for payments you may have made years ago. So perhaps we should add a new refund field that embeds a PaymentDetails structure instead of being just a list of outputs. We could try and solve this problem some other way purely internally, by doing a kind of wallet-specific swapping process in which things like Bloom filters are calculated without all keys in them being held in memory at once (perhaps caching filters for old parts of the key chain on disk), so you can have infinite wallets, but eventually the huge Bloom filters that would result would hurt efficiency in other ways. So key expiry seems pretty fundamental to scalability. One of the main goals of steath addresses is actually scalability. In particular in the refund address case you would use stealth addresses with a per-order UUID so that refunds can be detected cheaply by just scanning for payments to your (single) stealth address, then when those payments are detected, check the UUID against a on-disk database. A 64-bit UUID is probably fine, although unfortunately with OP_RETURN quite unexpectedly dropped to 40 bytes the standard needs to change; might have to compromise on privacy and re-use a txin pubkey to make things fit. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org f4f5ba334791a4102917e4d3f22f6ad7f2c4f15d97307fe2 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502538 [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505095 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
Does't BIP70 cover this already via Certificate Authorities? On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:21 PM, vv01f vv...@riseup.net wrote: Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502538 [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505095 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:21:03PM +0200, vv01f wrote: Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. Good timing! I'm at a hackathon right now working with a group to come up with a standard for adding Bitcoin addresses to OpenPGP keys. You're correct in thinking that doing so with standard Bitcoin addresses is a privacy problem, however we can also define new types of Bitcoin addresses that address the privacy issue; stealth addresses can handle the case where you want to pay someone without a formal payment request, and integrating OpenPGP into the payment protocol handles the scenario where you want to send or pay to a formal payment request. On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:49:14PM +0200, Natanael wrote: Does't BIP70 cover this already via Certificate Authorities? Incidentally on my todo list is to come up for a reasonable standard for taking X.509 certificates and using them to sign OpenPGP user IDs. Essentially the certificate authority is then making the statement that a keypair is authorized to sign on behalf of a domain-name, and in turn that keypair signs that the email address on the user ID is correct. It's a best of both worlds option in the same spirit of keybase.io -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org f4f5ba334791a4102917e4d3f22f6ad7f2c4f15d97307fe2 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
Security of transmission of person-to-person pay-to addresses is one of the use cases that we are addressing on our hardware wallet. I have yet to finish the paper but in a nutshell it uses a decentralised ledger of, what we refer to as, device keys. These keys are not related in any way to the Bitcoin keys, (which is why I'm hesitating about discussing it here) neither do they even attempt to identify the human owner if the device. But they do have a specific use case and that is to provide advanced knowledge of a publickey that can be used for encrypting a message to an intended recipient, without the requirement for a third-party CA, and more importantly without prior dialogue. We think it is this that would allow you to communicate a pay-to address to someone without seeing them in a secure way. As I understand it the BlockChain uses time bought through proof of work to establish a version of the truth, we are using time in the reverse sense : advanced knowledge of all pubkeys. Indeed all devices could easily check their own record to identify problems on the ledger. There is of course more to this, but I like to refer to the distributed ledger of device keys as the Web-of-trust re-imagined although that isn't strictly true. Ok there you have it. The cat is out of the bag, feel free to give feedback, I have to finish the paper, apologies if it is not a topic for this list. Regards Chris D'Costa On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:21, vv01f vv...@riseup.net wrote: Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502538 [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505095 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
This sounds like Namecoin. You can already register profiles with it, including keypairs. onename.io is a web-based client you can use to register on the Namecoin blockchain. On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Chris D'Costa chris.dco...@meek.io wrote: Security of transmission of person-to-person pay-to addresses is one of the use cases that we are addressing on our hardware wallet. I have yet to finish the paper but in a nutshell it uses a decentralised ledger of, what we refer to as, device keys. These keys are not related in any way to the Bitcoin keys, (which is why I'm hesitating about discussing it here) neither do they even attempt to identify the human owner if the device. But they do have a specific use case and that is to provide advanced knowledge of a publickey that can be used for encrypting a message to an intended recipient, without the requirement for a third-party CA, and more importantly without prior dialogue. We think it is this that would allow you to communicate a pay-to address to someone without seeing them in a secure way. As I understand it the BlockChain uses time bought through proof of work to establish a version of the truth, we are using time in the reverse sense : advanced knowledge of all pubkeys. Indeed all devices could easily check their own record to identify problems on the ledger. There is of course more to this, but I like to refer to the distributed ledger of device keys as the Web-of-trust re-imagined although that isn't strictly true. Ok there you have it. The cat is out of the bag, feel free to give feedback, I have to finish the paper, apologies if it is not a topic for this list. Regards Chris D'Costa On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:21, vv01f vv...@riseup.net wrote: Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502538 [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505095 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
The idea was not to register profiles or any human identity, or associate it with any other identity directly. Neither was it to have a massive BlockChain, or use proof of work. In this case proof of work is detrimental to security - you want as many people to know about your keys as quickly as possible. I want to add that this implies a shadow p2p network. Also it's just a point if view, but I thought it better not to have any specific link to a person's identity, or their Bitcoin identity by which I mean no connection to their public addresses. The device keys are not meant to be a permanent identity or to store encrypted data either (think what happens if the device changes hands), so the use case is only to establish secure communications, and to verify signatures whilst still in use by the owner. A new owner would need to establish a new device key - again this is in the details and probably more specific to the project. Regards Chris D'Costa On 31 Mar 2014, at 13:46, Natanael natanae...@gmail.com wrote: This sounds like Namecoin. You can already register profiles with it, including keypairs. onename.io is a web-based client you can use to register on the Namecoin blockchain. On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Chris D'Costa chris.dco...@meek.io wrote: Security of transmission of person-to-person pay-to addresses is one of the use cases that we are addressing on our hardware wallet. I have yet to finish the paper but in a nutshell it uses a decentralised ledger of, what we refer to as, device keys. These keys are not related in any way to the Bitcoin keys, (which is why I'm hesitating about discussing it here) neither do they even attempt to identify the human owner if the device. But they do have a specific use case and that is to provide advanced knowledge of a publickey that can be used for encrypting a message to an intended recipient, without the requirement for a third-party CA, and more importantly without prior dialogue. We think it is this that would allow you to communicate a pay-to address to someone without seeing them in a secure way. As I understand it the BlockChain uses time bought through proof of work to establish a version of the truth, we are using time in the reverse sense : advanced knowledge of all pubkeys. Indeed all devices could easily check their own record to identify problems on the ledger. There is of course more to this, but I like to refer to the distributed ledger of device keys as the Web-of-trust re-imagined although that isn't strictly true. Ok there you have it. The cat is out of the bag, feel free to give feedback, I have to finish the paper, apologies if it is not a topic for this list. Regards Chris D'Costa On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:21, vv01f vv...@riseup.net wrote: Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502538 [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505095 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
namecoin + SIN[1] or namecoin + PGP identity. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Identity_protocol_v1 On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:21 AM, vv01f vv...@riseup.net wrote: Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the forums. As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the next hack of the forums. Is that use case taken care of in any plans already? I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single vanity addresses only. It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them. [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=502538 [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505095 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
