Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

2015-06-01 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:01:49PM +0100, Roy Badami wrote: What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is REALLY important). TL

[Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork

2015-05-07 Thread Roy Badami
I'd love to have more discussion of exactly how a hard fork should be implemented. I think it might actually be of some value to have rough consensus on that before we get too bogged down with exactly what the proposed hard fork should do. After all, how can we debate whether a particular hard

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork

2015-05-07 Thread Roy Badami
On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split of the network. But is that a plausible scenario? Certainly *if* the concensus rules required a 99% supermajority of miners for the hard fork to go ahead,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork

2015-05-07 Thread Roy Badami
dropped two orders of magnitude - so low that the mean time between blocks is now over 16 hours. And the march 2013 fork showed that miners upgrade at a different schedule than the rest of the network. On May 7, 2015 5:44 PM, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote: On the other hand

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for P2P Wireless (Bluetooth LE) transfer of Payment URI

2015-02-06 Thread Roy Badami
In this case there is no need for P2P communication, just pay to an address you already have for the other party. If you want to avoid address reuse, use stealth addressing. But yes, if you don't have a stealth address for the other party you can certainly communicate in private as peers

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for P2P Wireless (Bluetooth LE) transfer of Payment URI

2015-02-05 Thread Roy Badami
Personally I like the simplicity of tapping two phones together to make payment - it should be quicker and easier than scanning QR codes and it's a trust model that's hard to misunderstand. Is NFC good enough for that? I fear even with NFC it is possible to produce a device with longer range

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for P2P Wireless (Bluetooth LE) transfer of Payment URI

2015-02-05 Thread Roy Badami
For peer-to-peer payments, how common do we think that the payment is of an ad hoc nature rather than to a known contact? If I want to pay my friends/colleagues/etc over a restaurant table there's no reason why I couldn't already have their public keys in my contact list - then it would be pretty

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Roy Badami
Why is this? Well, in most jurisdictions financial laws a custodial relationship is defined as having the ability, but not the right, to dispose of an asset. So if I leave my window open while I'm out and there's some cash on my desk, visible from the street, then every passer by now has a

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Area of Focus

2014-12-20 Thread Roy Badami
Why would we want to have anything to do with people who are hosting malware? Or do I misunderstand? On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 08:57:53AM +, Matt Corallo wrote: There was recently some discussion around dnsseeds. Currently some dnsseeds are getting blocked by ISPs because the hosts they pick

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension

2014-06-24 Thread Roy Badami
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:21:46AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Wallets would then be able to persist this data to disk and compete on cool visualisations for how much money you saved over time. heh, this is a cool idea.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc

2014-05-03 Thread Roy Badami
the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M. I'll be the first one As a counter argument, many sources (including the BBC) abbreviate million to 'm' (and billion to 'bn'), e.g. $3m, $3bn. I think any similarity with SI units here is coincidental. roy

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 implementation guidance

2014-05-02 Thread Roy Badami
*Extended validation certs* When a business is accepting payment, showing the name of the business is usually better than showing just the domain name, for a few reasons: 1. Unless your domain name *is* your business name like blockchain.info, it looks better and gives more info.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Warning message when running wallet in Windows XP (or drop support?)

2014-04-16 Thread Roy Badami
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:20:41PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Kevin kevinsisco61...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should get to the bottom of this. Should we assume that xp is not secure enough? Yes. Do we need a similar warning for OS X 10.6? The EOL of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field

2014-03-29 Thread Roy Badami
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach wrote: On 03/28/2014 07:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: Ok, why don't fix this in the spec for now, by defining a fixed expiry time. In the EU, most products are covered by a 2 years warranty, so it seems appropriate to pick 2.5 years

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys

2014-03-29 Thread Roy Badami
Right now there are also people simply taking base58-encoded private keys and running them through -split. It has a lot going for it, since it can easily be reassembled on any Linux machine without special software (B Poettering's Linux command line implementation[1] seems to be included

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys

2014-03-29 Thread Roy Badami
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 01:42:01PM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote: On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 5:28 pm, Roy Badami wrote: Right now there are also people simply taking base58-encoded private keys and running them through -split. It has a lot going for it, since it can easily

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

2014-03-26 Thread Roy Badami
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:02:44AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: It's not unusual, in a face-to-face transaction at a bricks-and-mortar establishment, that you know neither the legal name of the entity running the establishment I'd hope that people can get certs for their actual business

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

2014-03-20 Thread Roy Badami
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 07:31:27PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: Yes, this overlaps somewhat with the PKI signing in BIP70, but not entirely - you might want to serve unsigned payment requests, but still have confidentiality and authenticity for a local face to face transaction. The signing and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc

2014-03-14 Thread Roy Badami
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:05:25PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach wrote: btw. None of Bitcoin Wallet's users complained about confusion because of the mBTC switch. In contrast, I get many mails and questions if exchange rates happen to differ by 10%. At the moment, I imagine the vast majority of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 message delivery reliability

2014-01-30 Thread Roy Badami
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 07:03:57PM +0700, Chuck wrote: On 1/30/2014 7:02 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: With the way it works in bitcoinj, the tx is only committed to the wallet if the server accepts the Payment message and

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

2014-01-27 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:11:08AM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote: On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 03:59:25 -0800, Andreas Schildbach andr...@schildbach.de wrote: SCAN TO PAY For scan-to-pay, the current landscape looks different. I assume at least 50% of Bitcoin transactions are initiated by a BIP21

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-15 Thread Roy Badami
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:17:33PM +, I wrote: How about just calling them 'type S addresses'? (Assuming they're encoded in such as way that they actually start with 's'. Otherwise whatever prefix is actually used, obviously.)

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-14 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:58:01PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: Signing a payment request for an individual is easy, anyway, depending on the kind of ID you want. If you want to sign with an email address, just go here with a browser like Chrome/Safari/IE that uses the system keystore:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-13 Thread Roy Badami
I was thinking that people could upload a payment protocol file somewhere once (like to their personal web page, or shared via dropbox or google drive or some custom new pastebin style service), and then just encode a regular bitcoin URI into the qrcode on the billboard. That does require

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-13 Thread Roy Badami
Likewise, I could attach a payment request to an email and send it to you, and now you can pay me whenever you want forever. That certainly sounds like a plausible use case. You do still have the problem that e-mail is an insecure channel, but it's no worse than exchanging Bitcoin

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-13 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:58:01PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: Signing a payment request for an individual is easy, anyway, depending on the kind of ID you want. If you want to sign with an email address, just go here with a browser like Chrome/Safari/IE that uses the system keystore:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.6 release candidate 1

2013-12-09 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 02:55:02PM +, Drak wrote: On 9 December 2013 13:52, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote: On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:39:51PM +, Drak wrote: Someone needs to update the bitcoin.org website, it still points downloads to 0.8.5 Perhaps because 0.8.6

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72

2013-08-07 Thread Roy Badami
inline, amounts are defined inline. And if you want to rely on the payment infrastructure to work, you cannot risk people using the old-style static address in the URI. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote: Very brief comment on BIP 72: I wonder

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: soft-fork to make anyone-can-spend outputs unspendable for 100 blocks

2013-06-04 Thread Roy Badami
Sure they are paying themselves, but given bitcoin network difficulty is uso high, simply obtaining payments-go-myself-as-miner transactions is itself difficult. Not for pool operators it isn't. Nor for people buying hashing power from a GPUMAX-type service, if such services still exist (or

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoin pull requests

2013-04-01 Thread Roy Badami
The attack Schneier is talking about is a collision attack (i.e. it creates two messages with the same hash, but you don't get to choose either of the messages). It's not a second preimage attack, which is what you would need to be able to create a message that hashes to the same value of an

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoin pull requests

2013-04-01 Thread Roy Badami
engineering, not by breaking the cyrpto. roy On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:51:07PM +0100, Roy Badami wrote: The attack Schneier is talking about is a collision attack (i.e. it creates two messages with the same hash, but you don't get to choose either of the messages). It's not a second preimage

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Key retirement and key compromise

2013-03-25 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:10:53PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote: I'm not envisaging something as drastic as changing the rules to make transactions to revoked addresses invalid - just an overlay protocol. Although

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocksize and off-chain transactions

2013-03-13 Thread Roy Badami
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 07:28:06PM +0100, Pieter Wuille wrote: IMHO, the way to go is first get a 0.8.1 out that mimics the old behaviour - just as a stopgap solution. Presumably not emulate too precisely, at least if your initial report that the block caused 0.7 to 'get stuck' was correct. A

Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas

2013-03-13 Thread Roy Badami
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:14:03PM +, Luke-Jr wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:06:44 PM Andy Parkins wrote: On Wednesday 13 Mar 2013 12:56:29 Luke-Jr wrote: Here's a simple proposal to start discussion from... It seems to me that the biggest failure was not the development of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas

2013-03-13 Thread Roy Badami
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:27:01PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote: The idea of the client detecting/warning about not-trivial forking seems worthwhile too, though, assuming it doesn't already (AIUI it doesn't). It does

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Warning: many 0.7 nodes break on large number of tx/block; fork risk

2013-03-12 Thread Roy Badami
clients are anyway keeping, and re-relaying, their own transactions and hence it would mean only little, and only little for clients. Not all end-user clients are always-on though -- Symantec Endpoint Protection 12

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Secure download

2013-03-05 Thread Roy Badami
Would be nice to have a secure page at bitcoin.org, though, rathar than having to go to github - certs from somewhere like Namecheap should cost you next to nothing. And Namecheap now accept Bitcoin :-) (Complete coincidence - I didn't know that when I posted) roy

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-03 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:28:13PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: Witness the absurd design of SMTP that means you can't start a paragraph with the word From because that's a new-message marker! Actually that has absolutely nothing to do with SMTP. It's down to the file format of the standard BSD

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-03 Thread Roy Badami
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:34:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: You shouldn't need to escape and unescape data that is not being interpreted in any way. Funilly enough pretty much all low-level links that make up the Internet use either bit-stuffing or byte-stuffing to escape a particular bit

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-11-29 Thread Roy Badami
I'd still like to understand the rationale for having the merchant broadcast the transaction - it seems to add complexity and create edge cases. How about this as an alternative proposal: The buyer's client prepares the transaction and computes its txid. It then sends a ValidatePurchase message

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-11-29 Thread Roy Badami
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:31:24PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: I'd still like to understand the rationale for having the merchant broadcast the transaction There are several reasons for this: [snip] All good reasons, thanks for the explanation. Though I still like my idea of a