On 3 December 2012 20:35, Mike Koss m...@coinlab.com wrote:
The thing that bugged me most about the original spec was the sole
reliance on X.509 - glad to see you've made that optional. I think many
people will balk at deferring our identity trust to the existing CA's. I
think it's a fine
On 17 December 2012 03:18, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 December 2012 20:35, Mike Koss m...@coinlab.com wrote:
It would also be really nice to migrate to textual representations of
data
On 17 December 2012 10:19, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Can we please drop the binary vs text issue? We have been around it
millions of times already. There are no compelling arguments to use
text here and several obvious problems with it. If you think you've
found a good argument to use
I'm working on porting crypto currencies to the semantic web.
The advantages of this is that pages can then become machine readable on
the web allowing new types of innovation and spreading bitcoin information
to a wider audience.
The first step that needs to be done is to create a vocabulary
I was just looking at:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4571.0
I'm just curious if there is a possible attack vector here based on the
fact that git uses the relatively week SHA1
Could a seemingly innocuous pull request generate another file with a
backdoor/nonce combination that slips
to
cause problems in the chain by e.g. constantly splitting it.
OK, maybe im being *way* too paranoid here ... but what if someone had
access to github, could they replace one file with one they had prepared at
some point?
On 1 April 2013 03:26, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
I
talking about a million terrahashes = 2^60 right?
With the block chain, you only have a 10 minute window, but with source
code you have a longer time to prepare.
Couldnt this be done with an ASIC in about a week?
Will
On 1 April 2013 23:52, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote
There was some chat on IRC about a mining pool reaching 46%
http://blockchain.info/pools
What's the risk of a 51% attack.
I suggested that the pool itself is decentralized so you could not launch
one
On IRC people were saying that the pool owner gets to choose what goes in
the block
Surely
FYI: this is worth a read for anyone interested in the payment ecosystem on
the WWW ... it's about 5 years of work, and there's a even hope to
integrate bitccoin too ...
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/
I've cc'd Manu in case anyone here has any
So there's a slight world divide in digital payments with bitcoin using
ECDSA and GPG, payswarm / webid etc using largely RSA
Here's how to bring the two worlds together and enable bitcoins be sent
over webid or payswarm
Problem: Alice and Bob have RSA key pairs, but no public bitcoin
, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
So there's a slight world divide in digital payments with bitcoin using
ECDSA and GPG, payswarm / webid etc using largely RSA
Here's how to bring the two worlds together and enable bitcoins be sent
over webid or payswarm
Problem: Alice and Bob have RSA key pairs
On 14 May 2013 20:41, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
report: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205349.0
Every talk will be widely witnessed and videotaped so we can get some
reasonably good security by simply putting out PGP fingerprints in our
slides. Yeah, some fancy attacker
On 21 May 2013 01:59, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
At the developer round-table it was asked if the payment protocol would
alt-chains, and Gavin noted that it has a UTF-8 encoded string
identifying the network (main or test). As someone with two
proposals in the works which also
On 22 May 2013 16:07, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Some out of band algo/hash could work so long as there was a one to one
relationship between the described object and the UUID. In this case
On 7 May 2013 12:18, Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the proposed native crypto browser support (should arrive in
the next year)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/#EcKeyGenParams-dictionary
We see:
enum NamedCurve {
// NIST recommended curve P-256, also known
FYI: I think this may be a possible blue print for a web version of
bitcoin+ripple combined.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com
Date: 5 June 2013 18:50
Subject: Creating a Currency for the (Read / Write) Web
To: public-rww public-...@w3.org
On 6 June 2013 02:19, Peter Vessenes pe...@coinlab.com wrote:
So, this
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/the-last-straw-for-bitcoin-1059608-1.html?pg=1
article got posted today, noting that FinCEN thinks irrevocable payments
are money laundering tools.
It's great that this article
On 6 June 2013 21:59, Andreas M. Antonopoulos andr...@rooteleven.comwrote:
Is there any consideration given to the fact that bitcoin can operate as a
platform for many other services, if it is able to be neutral to payload,
as long as the fee is paid for the transaction size?
Unless I have
On 6 June 2013 23:48, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:16:40 PM Andreas M. Antonopoulos wrote:
This doesn't work like you might think: first of all, the fees today
are
greatly subsidized - the actual cost to store data in the blockchain is
much higher than
On 6 June 2013 02:19, Peter Vessenes pe...@coinlab.com wrote:
So, this
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/the-last-straw-for-bitcoin-1059608-1.html?pg=1
article got posted today, noting that FinCEN thinks irrevocable payments
are money laundering tools.
I will hold my thoughts about
On 10 June 2013 06:09, John Dillon john.dillon...@googlemail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It has been suggested that we leave the decision of what the blocksize to
be
entirely up to miners. However this leaves a parameter that affects every
Bitcoin participant
On 10 June 2013 23:09, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
So here's the parts that need to be done for step #1:
# Protocol Work
Basic idea is the miner makes two connections, their pool, and a local
bitcoind.
They always (usually?) work on the subset of transactions common to both
the
There was some confusion on IRC as to whether bitcoin addresses are opaque
or not.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address
For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell
nothing about the address by examining the characters.
My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and
FYI: some musings on how crypto currencies might be combined with social
good ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com
Date: 12 June 2013 19:39
Subject: The pay it forward approach to crypto currencies
To: building-a-distributed-decentralized
On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrote:
For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell
nothing about the address by examining the characters.
This is true or false based on CONTEXT
On 19 May 2013 15:23, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Is there a way to experiment with new features - eg committed coins - that
doesnt involve an altcoin in the conventional sense, and also doesnt impose
a big testing burden on bitcoin main which is a security and testing risk?
eg
On 18 June 2013 05:48, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
*Goal*: An alternative address format made possible by BIP 32, which
allows one to specify a Wallet ID and One-time payment code, instead of
the standard one-use Base58-Hash160 addresses. This allows parties with a
persistent
On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrote:
For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell
nothing about the address by examining the characters.
This is true or false based on CONTEXT
On 10 June 2013 06:09, John Dillon john.dillon...@googlemail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It has been suggested that we leave the decision of what the blocksize to
be
entirely up to miners. However this leaves a parameter that affects every
Bitcoin participant
On 31 July 2013 13:33, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote:
Is it envisaged to be possible/sensible to have a URI that is *only* a
payment request? i.e. something like the following (although I'm not
sure
A great presentation on advances in crypto
http://www.slideshare.net/astamos/bh-slides
--
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up.
On 9 August 2013 14:08, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Bitcoin sought to reduce dependence on trusted third parties, where as,
persona is increasing the reach of trusted third parties. The keys and
passwords are stored on mozilla's servers, sometimes on your email
providers. Persona, is
On 9 August 2013 13:59, Wendell w...@grabhive.com wrote:
We have been discussing something like this over here too, as well as
exploring more esoteric blockchain+signature-based SSO implementations as
discussed by John Light and others.
I've been using SSO for years using an X.509 private
On 16 August 2013 03:00, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike asked what non-0.9 code I'm working on; the three things on the top
of my list are:
1) Smarter fee handling on the client side, instead of hard-coded fees. I
was busy today generating scatter-plots and histograms of
We all love bitcoin's ability to transfer value in real time across borders.
But the regulatory environment in many geographical regions in uncertain.
Do we need to pay capital gains? Do we need to pay a sales taxs etc. etc.
At this point bitcoin is small enough for this to not be a huge
On 29 September 2013 10:32, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Neil Fincham n...@asdf.co.nz wrote:
I subscribe to this list so I can keep up-to date with bitcoin
development, can we keep philosophy and tax evasion out of it?
Yes, that's
On 29 September 2013 04:28, Neil Fincham n...@asdf.co.nz wrote:
I subscribe to this list so I can keep up-to date with bitcoin
development, can we keep philosophy and tax evasion out of it?
Hi Neil, perhaps I didnt present the use case clearly. It was not about
evasion, it was about
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=290
Very excited about this, particularly the 80 bytes embeddable message. I
do believe satoshi mentioned he wanted to add short messages, at some point.
Great work Gavin all!
--
On 2 November 2013 17:26, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Guys, identity systems for the web are off-topic for this list. Other than
the anonymous passports/SINs/fidelity bond ideas, Bitcoin doesn't have any
relevance to it.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Hannu Kotipalo
On 2 November 2013 22:57, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
Glad to see that there are more and more people wanting to replace
passwords with digital signatures.
Although such method has been already used on other websites like Eligius
or bitcoin-otc, I dont think theres any standard way to
On 2 November 2013 22:14, Johnathan Corgan johnat...@corganlabs.com wrote:
On 11/01/2013 10:01 PM, bitcoingr...@gmx.com wrote:
Server provides a token for the client to sign.
Anyone else concerned about signing an arbitrary string? Could be a
hash of $EVIL_DOCUMENT, no? I'd want to XOR
On 15 November 2013 01:37, Daniel F nanot...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a decentralized currency, and we should avoid centralizing
decisions. This is something that impacts the community at large, and
deserves input and discussion at every level.
I would suggest posting on all possible
On 14 October 2013 20:08, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Coming back to the staging idea, maybe this is a realistic model that could
work. The objective being to provide a way for bitcoin to move to a live
beta and stable being worked on in parallel like fedora vs RHEL or odd/even
On 6 November 2013 07:41, slush sl...@centrum.cz wrote:
But where are the private keys stored? Crypto in the browser with help,
but although they will expose ECC via the NSS, I dont think bitcoin's
particular curve will be supported, because it's not NIST approved. If the
use case was
Harry and David suggested I send a message to this group. I was wondering
if the crypto group may consider adding support for *secp256k1* in the
browser Named Curve dictionary.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/#EcKeyGenParams-dictionary
enum NamedCurve {
// NIST recommended curve P-256, also
On 27 December 2013 19:08, Mike Belshe m...@belshe.com wrote:
Great!
There is another one at http://testnet.btclook.com/ which provides a
different view as well.
And another at:
http://test.webbtc.com/http://test.webbtc.com/address/myTPjxggahXyAzuMcYp5JTkbybANyLsYBW
Testnet does not
On 3 January 2014 06:22, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org wrote:
I believe this is self-explainatory:
1) Bitcoin usually runs on port 8333. Why?
2) Bitcoin does not show in up
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml..
why?
3) What
On 27 December 2013 19:05, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
For a long time the only block explorer for testnet has been the original
blockexplorer.com, which is unfortunately often broken / behind / slow
and not really maintained any more.
There is now a new one, here:
On 13 March 2014 16:50, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
Such hand-wavy, data-free logic is precisely why community
coordination is preferred to random apps making random decisions in
this manner.
That ship sailed
On 20 March 2014 02:41, Odinn Cyberguerrilla
odinn.cyberguerri...@riseup.net wrote:
I wish to state that I fundamentally disagree with this proposal of use
cases for W3C payments workshop. Please read my following explanation and
then do what you will:
At one time I was invited to join the
On 16 April 2014 10:14, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Today I noticed that even my bank is warning people to not do internet
banking with Windows XP.
If it is no longer secure enough for online banking it's CERTAINLY not
secure enough to run a wallet (for a node only it would be
On 27 April 2014 09:07, Timo Hanke timo.ha...@web.de wrote:
I'd like to put the following draft of a BIP up for discussion.
Timo
# Abstract
There are incentives for miners to find cheap, non-standard ways to
generate new work, which are not necessarily in the best interest of the
I noticed this article today.
GHash Commits to 40% Hashrate Cap at Bitcoin Mining Summit
http://www.coindesk.com/ghash-commits-40-hashrate-cap-bitcoin-mining-summit/
Here's a quote from Satoshi when the mining arms race began:
We should have a gentleman’s agreement to postpone the GPU arms
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 27 September 2014 15:56, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Bitcoin Core version 0.9.3 is now available from:
https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.9.3/
This is a new minor version release, bringing only bug fixes and updated
translations. Upgrading to this release is recommended.
Please report
On 25 October 2014 21:53, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.com wrote:
We had a halving, and it was a non-event.
Is there some reason to believe next time will be different?
Yes.
When the market is rapidly growing, margins can be relatively high because
of limited amounts of capital being
On 26 October 2014 00:10, Ross Nicoll j...@jrn.me.uk wrote:
I'd suggest looking at how Dogecoin's mining schedule has worked out, for
how halvings tend to actually affect the market. Part of Dogecoin's design
was that it would halve very quickly (around every 75 days, in fact), so
it's
On 27 October 2014 08:49, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, apologies in coming in late to the conversation. As I am also
working on a REST API for electronic coins. Some questions:
1
On 22 October 2014 23:54, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
For those following this thread, we have now written a paper
describing the side-chains, 2-way pegs and compact SPV proofs.
(With additional authors Andrew Poelstra Andrew Miller).
http://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
A very
On 8 November 2014 16:28, Daniel F nanot...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd like to know what storage, RAM and bandwidth resources are
needed. I guess that the problem is not the CPU.
Hi Francis,
Here are some rough guidelines for you, based on the statistics from my
node:
disk usage: about
On 2 May 2015 at 00:57, Marc D. Wood metam...@metamarket.biz wrote:
METAmarket: Trustless Federated Marketplaces
http://metamarket.biz
* * *
Introduction
METAmarket is an open source protocol and proof-of-concept reference
client specifying a trustless federated marketplace which uses
On 11 May 2015 at 18:28, Thomas Voegtlin thom...@electrum.org wrote:
The discussion on block size increase has brought some attention to the
other elephant in the room: Long-term mining incentives.
Bitcoin derives its current market value from the assumption that a
stable, steady-state
On 18 June 2015 at 12:00, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Dude, calm down. I don't have commit access to Bitcoin Core and Gavin
already said long ago he wouldn't just commit something, even though he has
the ability to do so.
So why did I say it? Because it's consistent with what I've
63 matches
Mail list logo
