rks.
>
> If this change was introduced through a proper process and software was
> properly upgraded to understand the new header format, that'd be one thing.
> Arbitrarily exploiting what is IMHO a missing rule in the rule set to shave a
> bit more profit is something else.
>
>
should be incremented?
> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Timo Hanke wrote:
>
> > If changing the structure of the block header, wouldnt you also need to
> > increment the version number to 3?
>
> No, in this case I don't think so. Incrementing the versi
personally
I think 1 byte of version number would be enough.
> On 04/27/2014 12:07 AM, Timo Hanke wrote:
> > I'd like to put the following draft of a BIP up for discussion.
> >
> > Timo
> >
> > # Abstract
> > There are incentives for miners to find ch
zero in the MSBs of the version.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:17:11AM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 27 April 2014 09:07, Timo Hanke wrote:
>
> I'd like to put the following draft of a BIP up for discussion.
>
> Timo
>
> # Abstract
> There are
ation
# Final implementation
--
Timo Hanke
PGP 1EFF 69BC 6FB7 8744 14DB 631D 1BB5 D6E3 AB96 7DA8
--
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
Java Based
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:49:04AM +0100, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> On 03/11/13 08:40, Timo Hanke wrote:
> > Trezor picks random s and sends S=s*G to computer, keeping s secret.
>
> That's a really neat trick!
>
> > One question remains: if you only write down the mne
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>
> Le 03/11/2013 08:40, Timo Hanke a écrit :
> >I think the communication would have to go the other way around. Trezor
> >has to commit to a value First. Like this:
> >
> >Trezor picks random s and se
, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>
> Le 03/11/2013 07:41, Timo Hanke a écrit :
> >No. You mean the computer would use B for this check? (k,K) could
> >be rigged by Trezor, who computes b as k-a. Timo
>
> I was just asking a question, in order to understand how this device
> works, an
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 10:44:58AM +0100, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
>
> >To be specific, we (in cooperation with / inspired by Timo Hanke)
> >developed method how to prove that the seed generated by Trezor
> >has been created using combination of computer-provided entropy
&
hnathan Corgan
> n:Corgan;Johnathan
> org:Corgan Enterprises LLC dba Corgan Labs
> adr:;;6081 Meridian Ave. Suite 70-111;San Jose;CA;95120;United States
> email;internet:johnat...@corganlabs.com
> title:Managing Partner
> tel;work:+1 408 463 6614
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> url:
art interpreting P as an identity
(as Alan suggested in subsequent posts) _and_ this identity is a
public/global one rather than a local one that only the payer uses, then
reasons can pop up to eliminate ambiguity about which identity each
payment went to.
Timo
ps the fact that this post used t
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:39:04AM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 10:25 AM, Timo Hanke wrote:
> > Since you mention to use this in conjunction with the payment protocol,
> > note the following subtlety. Suppose the payer has to paid this address
> >
divine decree that public keys will always be sorted
> lexicographically in the multi-sig script). The blockchain still benefits
> from
> the "compression" of moving the bulky scripts to the TxIn, but it does require
> revealing more information than is necessary for the paye
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:07:07PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jeremy Spilman
> wrote:
>
> > Right now I'm leaning towards writing a prototype using a single cert with
> > a fingerprint of PubKey in the Subject Alternate Name, and getting PubKey
> > and Invoice
gt; Yes, but my point is if the SSL key lives on the web server, and there are CAs
> that issue you certs based on control of a web server at the given domain name
> (there are), then you can simply issue yourself a new SSL cert with whatever
> data in it you want and pose as the merc
he OP intended to solve it "right now", i.e. in v1.
He differentiated between "most trusted" and "less trusted" keys
(certs). So he can clearly live with the SSL PKI being "less trusted"
for his purpose.
--
Timo Hanke
PGP AB967DA8, Key fingerprint = 1EFF
om certs to
non-SSL identities like PGP-keys. You probably don't want to do that,
but it would solve Melvin Carvalho's problem of sending to RSA keys
(assuming the RSA key holder previously published his custom cert with a
cert
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:01:48PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, February 09, 2013 2:33:25 PM Timo Hanke wrote:
> > namcoin tries to solve a different problem, DNS, whereas I want
> > to establish an identity for a payment protocol.
>
> What is the technical differenc
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 06:01:08AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:03:54AM +0100, Timo Hanke wrote:
> > First, we have drafted a quite general specification for bitcoin
> > certificates (protobuf messages) that allow for a variety of payment
> > prot
utorial pages.
These examples have actually been carried out on testnet3.
For further details and specifications see the wiki.
timo hanke
--
Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the
20 matches
Mail list logo
