[Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-22 Thread Peter Todd
There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at the last minute prior to the 0.9 release. Secondly I noticed a overlooked security flaw in that OP_CHECKMULTISIG sigops weren't taken into account, making

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-22 Thread Jorge Timón
On 3/22/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at the last minute prior to the 0.9 release. I'm not against about miners accepting transactions that

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-22 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:47:02AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at the last minute prior to the 0.9 release. Secondly I noticed a overlooked security flaw in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

2014-03-22 Thread Jeff Garzik
Let's not pull out silly examples. Of course you can find locations that lack Internet. Those locations are completely unsuitable to bitcoin transactions, since the receiver cannot verify double-spending or anything else about the transaction. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Alex Kotenko

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

2014-03-22 Thread Mike Hearn
Those locations are completely unsuitable to bitcoin transactions, since the receiver cannot verify double-spending or anything else about the transaction. The usual issue is that they lack internet *for some customers*. The place may well have private wifi or hardwired connections that

[Bitcoin-development] Fake PGP key for Gavin

2014-03-22 Thread Mike Hearn
In case you didn't see this yet, http://gavintech.blogspot.ch/2014/03/it-aint-me-ive-got-pgp-imposter.html If you're using PGP to verify Bitcoin downloads, it's very important that you check you are using the right key. Someone seems to be creating fake PGP keys that are used to sign popular

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-22 Thread Mark Friedenbach
Please, by all means: ignore our well-reasoned arguments about externalized storage and validation cost and alternative solutions. Please re-discover how proof of publication doesn't require burdening the network with silly extra data that must be transmitted, kept, and validated from now until

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

2014-03-22 Thread Mark Friedenbach
Jeff, there are *plenty* of places that lack local Internet access for one or both participants. Obviously making the case where both participants lack access to the bitcoin network is difficult to secure, but not impossible (e.g. use a telephany-based system to connect to a centralized

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

2014-03-22 Thread Jeff Garzik
One participant, yes. Two participants lacking net would require a serious revisit of BIP 70's security assumptions and some design, at a minimum. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: Jeff, there are *plenty* of places that lack local Internet access for

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

2014-03-22 Thread Mike Hearn
I think it's mostly a UI issue. The recipient needs to understand that what he received is nothing more than an IOU that can be revoked at any time. If the UI makes it clear and the user trusts the sender, no problem. BIP70 would work as before. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Garzik

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fake PGP key for Gavin

2014-03-22 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: do we codesign the Windows binaries? Yes, the -setup.exe installers are Authenticode (or whatever Microsoft is calling that these days) code-signed. -- -- Gavin Andresen

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fake PGP key for Gavin

2014-03-22 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 06:03:03PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: In case you didn't see this yet, http://gavintech.blogspot.ch/2014/03/it-aint-me-ive-got-pgp-imposter.html If you're using PGP to verify Bitcoin downloads, it's very important that you check you are using the right key. Someone

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-22 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:08:36AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 04:47:02AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at the last minute prior

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee

2014-03-22 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:53:41PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote: On 3/22/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: There's been a lot of recent hoopla over proof-of-publication, with the OP_RETURN data length getting reduced to a rather useless 40 bytes at the last minute prior to the 0.9

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fake PGP key for Gavin

2014-03-22 Thread Oliver Egginger
Am 22.03.2014 18:03, schrieb Mike Hearn: In case you didn't see this yet, http://gavintech.blogspot.ch/2014/03/it-aint-me-ive-got-pgp-imposter.html If you're using PGP to verify Bitcoin downloads, it's very important that you check you are using the right key. Someone seems to be creating

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments

2014-03-22 Thread Alex Kotenko
I know that general approach to interaction design in Bitcoin assumes minimal to no difference between payer and payee, and generally I agree with this approach. However, for the sake of my PoS development this assumption is wrong by default, as PoS is a specialized hardware, and one who cared to