On 15 September 2014 09:23, Thomas Zander tho...@thomaszander.se wrote:
On Sunday 14. September 2014 08.28.27 Peter Todd wrote:
Do we have any evidence Satoshi ever even had access to that key? Did he
ever use PGP at all for anything?
Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander tho...@thomaszander.se wrote:
Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust or sign
a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without seeing that
person in real life, verifying their identity etc.
Such
I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but to
dismiss this as geek wanking is the pot calling the kettle.
The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because your
risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go see if you can
get
It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi.
value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable... no it is
quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain
output, code. The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not
bitcoin continues to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Funny that you should describe WoT that way. According to some
psycho-analysts the act of making love to a partner is actually a
realization of our subconscious desire to make love to ourselves.
So, in this sense, WoT geeks are indeed masturbating,
In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it holds true for now.
I also never said the actual credential you receive from a government
agency is trustable. I completely agree that they are forgeable and not
necessarily reliable. That was not my point. I was referring to the vetting
To: Jeff Garzik
Cc: Thomas Zander; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Does anyone have anything at all signed by
Satoshi's PGP key?
I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but to
dismiss this as geek wanking is the pot calling the kettle.
The value
On Monday 15. September 2014 11.51.35 Matt Whitlock wrote:
If you were merely attaching your public key to them, then the email server
could have been systematically replacing your public key with some other
public key,
The beauty of publicly archived mailinglists make it impossible to get
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
On Monday, 15 September 2014, at 5:10 pm, Thomas Zander wrote:
So for instance I start including a bitcoin public key in my email signature.
I don't sign the emails or anything like that, just to establish that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15 September 2014 17:10:14 BST, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
If the server could replace the public key, it could replace the
signature in all the same places.
Please, can this stuff move to another list? It's offtopic.
+1
My
On 09/15/2014 03:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless and
stupid geek wanking.
A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant. We know how
Satoshi coded and wrote. It was the online Satoshi with which we
interacted. The online
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 10:03:20AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
That claim is horse manure :) He never signed private emails sent to
me, nor the forum posts.
That's consistent with what everyone else is saying:
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/509614729879642113
He -might- have signed
So far I have zero evidence that the common claim that Satoshi PGP
signed everything was true; I have no evidence he ever
cryptographically signed any communications at all.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0ce4f740fb700bb8a9ed859ac96ac9871567a20fca07f76a
signature.asc
13 matches
Mail list logo
