Re-reading this, even with the most recent message, is still isn't clear _precisely_ how your technology works, or why it is better than namecoin. User profiles (and distributed ledgers) need to reflect the latest updates, and a stream of updates of over time is precisely what bitcoin technology secures.
Keys expire or are compromised, and the public ledger needs to reflect that. There is a lot of computer science involved in making sure the public ledger you see is not an outdated view. A log-like stream of changes is not the only way to do things, but other methods need less hand-wavy details (show the code) before they are well recognized as useful. On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:14 AM, 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 -- 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
