Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blockchain as root CA for payment protocol

2013-02-09 Thread Timo Hanke
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 protocols (e.g. static as well

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blockchain as root CA for payment protocol

2013-02-11 Thread Timo Hanke
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 difference here? Namecoin ties names

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cold Signing Payment Requests

2013-04-25 Thread Timo Hanke
problem of sending to RSA keys (assuming the RSA key holder previously published his custom cert with a cert server). -- Timo Hanke PGP AB967DA8, Key fingerprint = 1EFF 69BC 6FB7 8744 14DB 631D 1BB5 D6E3 AB96 7DA8 -- Try

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cold Signing Payment Requests

2013-04-25 Thread Timo Hanke
live with the SSL PKI being less trusted for his purpose. -- Timo Hanke PGP AB967DA8, Key fingerprint = 1EFF 69BC 6FB7 8744 14DB 631D 1BB5 D6E3 AB96 7DA8 -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Timo Hanke
I'd like to use this, and it'd be nice to have some community backing, so I don't have to twist anyone's arm to trust me that it's legit. -Alan -- Timo Hanke PGP 1EFF 69BC 6FB7 8744 14DB 631D 1BB5 D6E3 AB96 7DA8

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Optional wallet-linkable address format - Payment Protocol

2013-06-19 Thread Timo Hanke
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 called destination: Standard Address

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-11-03 Thread Timo Hanke
, 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, and what are its requirements. if you

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to replace BIP0039

2013-11-16 Thread Timo Hanke
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 mnemonic how can you be sure

[Bitcoin-development] Proposal for extra nonce in block header

2014-04-27 Thread Timo Hanke
# 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 Open

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for extra nonce in block header

2014-05-04 Thread Timo Hanke
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 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for extra nonce in block header

2014-05-04 Thread Timo Hanke
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 cheap, non-standard ways to generate new work, which are not necessarily in the best interest of the protocol

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for extra nonce in block header

2014-05-04 Thread Timo Hanke
PM, Timo Hanke timo.ha...@web.de 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 version number has two purposes: 1. inform old clients that something

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for extra nonce in block header

2014-10-18 Thread Timo Hanke
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. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Timo Hanke timo.ha...@web.de