I agree that this would be another way of achieving the same goal. I'd
be fine with that if there is a majority.
However, I also see downsides of this approach:
1. It's more complicated. It touches more BIPs, and although signing is
terribly difficult its still more difficult than just hashing. E
Hi
i have some money on btc. How invest, and where invest for more eranig
--
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reli
On 09/12/2014 08:43 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> Should BIP72 require that signed payment requests be from the same
> domain,
Although it currently does not seem to be used that way, I'd like to see
merchants sign their payment requests but store them on their payment
processors server. Currently i
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 should not trust or sign
a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) k
On 15 September 2014 09:23, Thomas Zander 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 should not trust
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander 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 guidelines are a perfect exa
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
ge
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 functio
-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, bu
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
pro
WoT is a perfectly reasonable way to establish trust about the link between
an online identity and a real world identity.
In the case of a developer with an existing reputation for his online
identity, that link is just irrelevant.
On Sep 15, 2014 4:52 PM, "Brian Hoffman" wrote:
> In the context
The reason it is in fact wanking is because pgp tried to solve a problem that
can't be solved.
It tried to provide distributed trust to a system of identity, while still
depending on the local government (i.e centralized) for the upstream ID...
It's a marriage that has no benefit.
What we real
The reason it is in fact geek wanking is because pgp tried to solve a problem
that can't be solved.
It tried to provide distributed trust to a system of identity, while still
depending on the local governments (i.e. centralization) for the upstream ID.
Its a marriage that has no benefits.
What
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 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
>> everyone
>> has my pu
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
> everyone
> has my public key many times in their email archives.
> Then when I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15 September 2014 17:10:14 BST, Gregory Maxwell 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 original post was
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 onli
18 matches
Mail list logo
