Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

> Clearly the primary purpose of BIP0075 is to enshrine a DNSSEC protocol > for giving wallet addresses memorable names. > > I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't, I don't think this is an accurate description at all. BIP75 is, at its most simplest, nothing more than an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

Sometimes I think there's concerted resistance to making Bitcoin usable for the average person. Clearly the primary purpose of BIP0075 is to enshrine a DNSSEC protocol for giving wallet addresses memorable names. On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev <

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

Hi there, For users who don’t wish a service provider to be able to see their information, even ephemerally, and they would like to exchange information via BIP75, they can use a software wallet, such as a breadwallet or others, and that data will only exist on their phone, and the phone of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

In England under RIPA 2000 legislation, it's irrelevant whether you have the data or not. If the authorities compel you to hand over that information, and it is within your means to obtain it then you are obliged to do so under threat of criminal offense. So any mechanism whereby data could be

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, s7r via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > Any kind of built-in AML/KYC tools in Bitcoin is bad, and might draw > expectations from _all_ users from authorities. Companies or individuals > who want and/or need AML/KYC can find ways

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On 6/23/2016 1:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> I don’t know if you are opposed to organizations that have AML requirements >> from using the bitcoin blockchain, but if you aren’t, why wouldn’t you >> prefer an open source, open standards based solution to exclusionary, >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

AML/KYC is a *side-effect *of a some very important features of BIP0075. Features that have nothing to do with public names for wallet seeds, and moniker *consistency *should be scrapped. BIP 75 formalises what someone could do today with a bunch of PGP emails back and forth. I create a public

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Building Blocks of the State Machine Approach to Consensus

> > The point I'm making is simply that to be useful, when you close a seal you > have to be able to close it over some data, in particular, another seal. > That's > the key thing that makes the idea a useful construct for smart contacts, > value > transfer/currency systems, etc. > OK, your

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:16:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" wrote: > > > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; > the > > question now is what editorial policies should we exert? > > No, I do not. I am

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" wrote: > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the > question now is what editorial policies should we exert? No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial control will inevitably exist, simply

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication > > platform

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: >> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On 06/22/2016 04:25 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Only large merchants are able to maintain such an infrastructure; (even > Coinbase recently failed at it, they forgot to update their > certificate). For end users that is completely unpractical. > > > Payment protocol

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips > repository, > > and boycott wallets that implement it.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips repository, > and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin developers > to willingly participate in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Building Blocks of the State Machine Approach to Consensus

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:26:22PM +, Police Terror via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Bitcoin could embed a lisp interpreter such as Scheme, reverse engineer > the current protocol into lisp (inside C++), run this alternative engine > alongside the current one as an option for some years (only for fine

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Justin Newton wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < > Hi Peter, >Certainly AML/KYC compliance is one of the use cases that BIP 75 and our > certificates can support. As a quick summary, > > There are individuals and