+Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]

+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)

+ by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

+ (envelope-from

+ <SRS0=Aky0H1w1=2V=jerviss.org=bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>)

+ id 1Wnt4r-0007Ta-SV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Fri, 23 May 2014 17:16:17 +0000

+X-ACL-Warn:

+Received: from serv.jerviss.org ([12.47.47.47] helo=inana.jerviss.org)

+ by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)

+ (Exim 4.76) id 1Wnt4q-0005ZX-EH

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Fri, 23 May 2014 17:16:17 +0000

+Received: from [156.99.25.142] ([156.99.25.142])

+ (username: kjj authenticated by PLAIN symmetric_key_bits=0)

+ by inana.jerviss.org (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s4NGmYgm026797

+ (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);

+ Fri, 23 May 2014 11:48:38 -0500

+Message-ID: <537F7BE2.6010006@jerviss.org>

+Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 11:48:34 -0500

+From: Kyle Jerviss <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>

+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>

+References: <CA+s+GJBNWh0Py9KB4Y+B19ACeHOygtkLrPw5SbZ0SrVs50pqvg@mail.gmail.com> <7B48B9D4-5FB0-42CA-A462-C20D3F345A9A@beams.io> <CA+s+GJC8=OHmmF7fc-fT8fQDWE1uNcCS8-ELEKr0MjQ4CpbPBA@mail.gmail.com> <537D0CE1.3000608@monetize.io> <CAAS2fgSN00Y2XUqLoft9=Fq1GfWvSYQfXdD=RE8890iOU5asRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0NNMKW57r2cRsu3a1UFSf5MSp-EWATqf--DKTe-=n26CA@mail.gmail.com>

+ <CA+s+GJBJKQqsJHzdHvw0-r3mmvbRMDpUrWFj2O2-RXkpgGLO7g@mail.gmail.com>

+In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBJKQqsJHzdHvw0-r3mmvbRMDpUrWFj2O2-RXkpgGLO7g@mail.gmail.com>

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+Received-SPF: pass (inana.jerviss.org: 156.99.25.142 is authenticated by a

+ trusted mechanism)

+X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--)

+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.

+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.

+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for

+ sender-domain

+ -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay

+ domain

+X-Headers-End: 1Wnt4q-0005ZX-EH

+Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>

+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] PSA: Please sign your git commits

+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: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:16:18 -0000

+

+Multisig is great for irreversible actions, but pointless most of the

+time, which is why no PGP developer or user ever thought to implement it.

+

+If you lose a key and an attacker signs a bogus email or commit with it,

+we all roll back with no lasting harm done.

+

+Wladimir wrote:

+> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:

+>> Related: Current multi-sig wallet technology being rolled out now,

+>> with 2FA and other fancy doodads, is now arguably more secure than my

+>> PGP keyring. My PGP keyring is, to draw an analogy, a non-multisig

+>> wallet (set of keys), with all the associated theft/data

+>> destruction/backup risks.

+>>

+>> The more improvements I see in bitcoin wallets, the more antiquated my

+>> PGP keyring appears. Zero concept of multisig. The PGP keyring

+>> compromise process is rarely exercised. 2FA is lacking. At least

+>> offline signing works well. Mostly.

+> Would be incredible to have multisig for git commits as well. I don't

+> think git supports multiple signers for one commit at this point -

+> amending the signature replaces the last one - but it would allow for

+> some interesting multi-factor designs in which the damage when a dev's

+> computer is compromised would be reduced.

+>

+> Sounds like a lot of work to get a good workflow there, though.

+>

+> My mail about single-signing commits was already longer than I

+> expected when I started writing there. Even though the process is

+> really simple.

+>

+> Though if anyone's interest is piqued by this, please pick it up.

+>

+> Wladimir

+>

+> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE

+> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.

+> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available

+> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."

+> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs

+> _______________________________________________

+> Bitcoin-development mailing list

+> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

+

+

+