diff options
| author | Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> | 2013-05-20 21:00:44 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2013-05-21 04:31:49 +0000 |
| commit | d80b595300af7fd6bbf46e6668dd4feff041c992 (patch) | |
| tree | 677490d4ceb7e1345c46ed3240be57c693b88981 | |
| parent | 699099c37dac53b4f2fe9c95fe497ac554226de8 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-d80b595300af7fd6bbf46e6668dd4feff041c992.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-d80b595300af7fd6bbf46e6668dd4feff041c992.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] UUID to identify chains (payment protocol and elsewhere)
| -rw-r--r-- | c0/0a3268d07154df38064c893ad0e348d69745a8 | 130 |
1 files changed, 130 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c0/0a3268d07154df38064c893ad0e348d69745a8 b/c0/0a3268d07154df38064c893ad0e348d69745a8 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a3bed4a1d --- /dev/null +++ b/c0/0a3268d07154df38064c893ad0e348d69745a8 @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <mark@monetize.io>) id 1UeeEn-0003wT-PG + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 21 May 2013 04:31:49 +0000 +Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1UeeEk-0000mO-G5 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 21 May 2013 04:31:49 +0000 +Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id bi5so290733pad.36 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:40 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc + :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type + :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; + bh=HXTXLOlnoeRg2NzwJq5C/sFFjy/5zoDnFoL2DSEb2O4=; + b=WPlHspAT4C5mRfHaBahiiytQAddQeEf20JATazKbGNydk+g2pA5gKoU2S+YFDZjaWp + DZoUXhVtj9CrmNVbWJmUl1eeugfNi304Z5MaXmY+Xh9AeYZdCcN1mbh4gKCngZy29dXI + tiKSPfx605AXSO1oSqMa9XJcZzoUeIjN+6kuFrKr/LmEuZYa1N61bnCWd9k5ibtaJY7x + gu8hrTVlo7uWDz8JZYOK2kj3sXco7on7Re7igFKQxxnolRMho4SWfoEIYgzd9+moTeeC + 6svCBmmfyRer2Me9IbxX3lfyeTsOwlmzeHHFp5zRa5pffKsAUiPowH+wCEpAVnqpV+ZI + BjOQ== +X-Received: by 10.67.2.33 with SMTP id bl1mr1219297pad.26.1369108846896; + Mon, 20 May 2013 21:00:46 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from phobos.local (50-0-36-146.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net. [50.0.36.146]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id + fp2sm852006pbb.36.2013.05.20.21.00.45 for <multiple recipients> + (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Mon, 20 May 2013 21:00:46 -0700 (PDT) +Message-ID: <519AF16C.3040005@monetize.io> +Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 21:00:44 -0700 +From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> +Organization: Monetize.io Inc. +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; + rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> +References: <519AB8EB.5000103@monetize.io> + <CA+8xBpeUOsZq=3jP7GMJgnxH1Vh9GmPydzXWuScCjDyVUf2YVg@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpeUOsZq=3jP7GMJgnxH1Vh9GmPydzXWuScCjDyVUf2YVg@mail.gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnt/O5tWp2AlRCeJVFRfmMAX1v4lM1neoZ5i+0f2AJP/5nDdOa0CThcOQJ2v/e0WIiYMGMq +X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. +X-Headers-End: 1UeeEk-0000mO-G5 +Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] UUID to identify chains (payment protocol + and elsewhere) +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 04:31:50 -0000 + +This was meant to go to everyone: + +On 5/20/13 7:45 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: +> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote: +>> So as to remain reasonably compliant with RFC 4122, I recommend that we +>> use Version 4 (random) UUIDs, with the random bits extracted from the +>> double-SHA256 hash of the genesis block of the chain. (For colored +>> coins, the colored coin definition transaction would be used instead, +>> but I will address that in a separate proposal and will say just one +>> thing about it: adopting this method for identifying chains/coins will +>> greatly assist in adopting the payment protocol to colored coins.) +> This proposal seems closer to Version 5 than Version 4, in spirit. +> But given that useful content may be deduced from UUID, it is not +> truly applicable to either. A bitcoin-specific version 6, if you +> will. +That is true, and perhaps we have enough clout to push an RFC specifying +a double-SHA256 Version 6, or at least get it reserved. I proposed +Version 4 (random) because any UUID library should allow you to specify +the 122 supposedly random bits of that version, whereas conceivably +there might exist UUID libraries that require a SHA1 pre-image to create +a Version 5 UUID (I know of no examples though). Regardless, making an +official double-SHA256 UUID version RFC is an option worth considering. +> And some example chain identifiers: +> +> mainnet: UUID('6fe28c0a-b6f1-4372-81a6-a246ae63f74f') +> testnet3: UUID('43497fd7-f826-4571-88f4-a30fd9cec3ae') +> namecoin: UUID('70c7a9f0-a2fb-4d48-a635-a70d5b157c80') +> Note that, as this example unintentionally implies, humans are going +> to want a side-by-side mapping /anyway/, just to make it readable and +> usable to humans. +> +> Almost all useful multi-chain software will require a readable +> shortname string anyway, the thing this proposal wishes to avoid. +I think there are perhaps two issues being conflated here (and in Mike's +response): the UI identifying the network/coin to the user, and the +matching of the protocol-supplied value to the underlying network/coin +by the client/daemon. The former necessarily involves manual adjustments +(e.g, localization), but it's preferable for the latter to be a +self-validating reference to the block chain. This is a trivial +difference for multi-chain wallets (what are you doing receiving +requests for coins in chains you don't know about?), but is important +for colored coins. Let me explain: + +I will be proposing soon a colored coin architecture that allows +issuance of new coins by anyone for a fee, by means of a special +category of transaction. The hash of that issuing transaction would then +be used to generate a UUID identifying the asset for the payment +protocol and other purposes as well, analogous to how the hash of the +genesis block identifies the host currency, bitcoin. It is expected that +there will be many such coins issued, as they can be used to represent +individual loans or lines of credit. In this context, any colored-coin +aware client could scan the block chain (or lookup a maintained index) +to discover the UUID -> coin mapping with absolute certainty. However +the mechanism for mapping the text "mtgoxUSD" to a specific coin is not +clear, and using some sort of DNS-resolution system adds huge external +dependencies. IMHO it is much better to have the identifier derived from +block chain data directly (and therefore accessible and trusted by all +nodes), and then carry out optional UI mappings like UUID(...) -> +"mtgoxUSD" at a higher level. + +Does that make sense? + + |