On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com
wrote:
If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should
explicitly define one
On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:27 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 2015-06-20 19:19, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:37 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 2015-06-20 18:20, Jorge Timón wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric
On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed
assumptions…and
probably would not be able to gracefully handle very many risk scenarios.
- Eric Lombrozo
On Jun 19, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Aaron Voisine vois...@gmail.com wrote:
What retail needs is escrowed microchannel hubs (what lightning provides,
for example), which enable untrusted instant
this with consensus rules. Once a fork, always a fork - a.k.a.
altcoins. Say what you will about how most altcoins are crap - at least most of
them have the decency of starting with a clean ledger.
- Eric Lombrozo
On Jun 18, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/18
...
2015-06-19 14:02 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com
mailto:elombr...@gmail.com:
On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:45 AM, Dr Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org
mailto:a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
That wont be good for the companies either, but they may not see that
until they've killed it, many
cliches, the Mac came before the Windows PC…Yahoo! came before
Google…MySpace came before Facebook…Bitcoin came before we don’t know yet.
- Eric Lombrozo
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
a conflicting
transaction is fraud and vandalism” means that if for whatever reason you
attempt to propagate a transaction and nobody mines it for a very long time,
you’re not entitled to immediately reclaim those funds…they must remain in
limbo forever.
- Eric Lombrozo
On Jun 19, 2015, at 8:11 AM
If we want a non-repudiation mechanism in the protocol, we should explicitly
define one rather than relying on “prima facie” assumptions. Otherwise, I would
recommend not relying on the existence of a signed transaction as proof of
intent to pay…
On Jun 19, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Matt Whitlock
, that the fact that the majority of nodes don't
relay and only perform the most rudimtentary level of validation if any is
considered an acceptable feature of the protocol.
- Eric Lombrozo
and Gavin.
Most news publications keep the discussion rather shallow and like to keep the
controversy pretty black and white - some of us have far more nuanced views!
- Eric Lombrozo
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if we’re
going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much more
generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)
- Eric Lombrozo
On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com
to much greater corruptibility.
- Eric Lombrozo
On Jun 13, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Chun Wang 1240...@gmail.com wrote:
To tell you the truth. It is only because most miners are not located
in the West. If Slush, Eligius and BTC Guild still on top 3, the core
developers, including brain-dead Mike Hearn
That’s exactly the problem with Bitcoin - it was supposed to be the case that
users ARE the miners and node operators…but…alas…
On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Danny Thorpe danny.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a say in block
size limits?
://docs.google.com/document/d/1nGF6LjGwhzuiJ9AQwKAhN1a1SXvGGHWxoKmDSkiIsPI/
- Eric Lombrozo
On Feb 12, 2015, at 11:53 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:13:33PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote:
Where is the Specification section?? Does this support arbitrary scripts, or
only
.
- Eric Lombrozo
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50
to explore all the
complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a
one-off ad-hoc thing.
- Eric Lombrozo
On May 6, 2015, at 3:30 PM, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
I don't have strong opinion @ block size topic.
But if there'll be a fork, PLEASE, include
I should note that my proposal does require a change to the consensus
rules...but getting bitcoin to scale will require this no matter what.
- Eric Lombrozo
On Feb 22, 2015 3:41 AM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me we're confusing two completely different motivations
?
- Eric Lombrozo
On Feb 21, 2015 8:09 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com
wrote:
This isn't some theoretical exercise. Like it or not many use
On Sunday, February 22, 2015, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22 February 2015 08:41:56 GMT-05:00, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:
In case it wasn't clear in my earlier post, there's of course a third
I would highly recommend NOT using Base58 for anything except stuff that is
to be copy/pasted by the enduser.
Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers.
- Eric
On Jan 14, 2015 2:54 PM, Jeffrey Paul j...@eeqj.com wrote:
On 20150114, at 09:39, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote:
I think everyone is pretty much following this standard now.
- Eric
On Jan 14, 2015 12:58 PM, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote:
At CryptoCorp we recommend to our customers that they sort
lexicographically by the public key bytes of the leaf public keys. i.e.
the same as BitPay.
chance that it will
fail, in which case we can recover by moving everything over to a new tree.
-Eric Lombrozo
On Aug 9, 2014, at 5:34 PM, second isogeny secondisog...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone see any concerns when it comes to security of the proposed
change?
Yes. This proposal
Ciphrex CoinVault (https://ciphrex.com) is currently using parallel trees with
lexicographic sorting of keys.
CoinVault is also using a partially signed transaction format whereby 0-length
placeholders are used for missing signatures in the transaction scripts. Once
all the required signatures
of throughput required is generally not that large and
constant-time implementations will be more than adequate on typical hardware.
-Eric Lombrozo
On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
A new practical technique has been published that can recover secp256k1
private keys
indistinguishable from
point additions from the perspective of cache access.
On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't mind sacrificing some performance when signing, there's a fairly
efforts would
be best rewarded trying to prevent.
However, this thread IS about this particular attack vector - and my suggestion
IS specific to this thread.
-Eric Lombrozo
On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:17 PM, James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Peter Todd p
hierarchy (which
parallels real-world organizations) and signing keys (which are merely
cryptographic primitives, preferably never even shown directly to most
endusers), I think we'll fail to find good ways to make the H in HD keychains
useful.
-Eric Lombrozo
signature.asc
Description: Message
I've built a shell around the bitcoind JSON-RPC, along with a websockets server
that provides realtime transaction and block feeds which can be used with
bitcoin mainnet and testnet as well as any of the alt chains and formats it
similar to blockchain.info with the bootstrap look-and-feel, i.e.
I'll add testnet to it as well - sorry, Ben, for lifting the css (I'm a
programmer, not a graphic designer) - if anyone would like to help me make the
styling original, I would be more than happy to collaborate.
-Eric
On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote:
I've
Why not just use the transaction hash itself for the lookup? Also, presumably
you'd want to encrypt the data so that only the recipient of the transaction
can do this lookup.
-Eric
On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Wendell w...@grabhive.com wrote:
Hi all,
We're thinking about ways of
,
af32bb06f12f2ae5fdb7face7cd272be67c923e86b7a66a76ded02d954c2f94d
Is there ever a legitimate reason to create a transaction with a zero-length
script? Should the protocol even allow it?
-Eric Lombrozo
--
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support
using callbacks.
The callback mechanism could be configurable in a similar fashion to
the RPC in the bitcoin.conf file.
-Eric Lombrozo
--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
The callback architecture could be such that other code would never
need to enter into the wallet-handling process/memory space. For
instance, client applications could subscribe a particular URL to get
sent an HTTP POST.
For the apps I've been working on, there really isn't any need to
access
, reorganize the
code
to place these methods in separate source files, define a callback
mechanism, and contribute source code.
-Eric Lombrozo
--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click
35 matches
Mail list logo