Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.179; envelope-from=natanael.l@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f179.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51C10069-5C3B-462A-9184-669ABC6CD9D0@meek.io>
References: <5339418F.1050800@riseup.net>
	<51C10069-5C3B-462A-9184-669ABC6CD9D0@meek.io>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:46:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAt2M1-ACsJewKnhnPQqn8L7L54WzDyRAjfiGv7eB2LvL_p0Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chris D'Costa" <chris.dcosta@meek.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
Precedence: list

This sounds like Namecoin. You can already register profiles with it,
including keypairs. onename.io is a web-based client you can use to
register on the Namecoin blockchain.

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Chris D'Costa <chris.dcosta@meek.io> wrote=
:
> Security of transmission of person-to-person pay-to addresses is one of t=
he use cases that we are addressing on our hardware wallet.
>
> I have yet to finish the paper but in a nutshell it uses a decentralised =
ledger of, what we refer to as, "device keys".
>
> These keys are not related in any way to the Bitcoin keys, (which is why =
I'm hesitating about discussing it here) neither do they even attempt to id=
entify the human owner if the device. But they do have a specific use case =
and that is to provide "advanced knowledge" of a publickey that can be used=
 for encrypting a message to an intended recipient, without the requirement=
 for a third-party CA, and more importantly without prior dialogue. We thin=
k it is this that would allow you to communicate a pay-to address to someon=
e without seeing them in a secure way.
>
> As I understand it the BlockChain uses "time" bought through proof of wor=
k to establish a version of the truth, we are using time in the reverse sen=
se : advanced knowledge of all pubkeys. Indeed all devices could easily che=
ck their own record to identify problems on the ledger.
>
> There is of course more to this, but I like to refer to the "distributed =
ledger of device keys" as the "Web-of-trust re-imagined" although that isn'=
t strictly true.
>
> Ok there you have it. The cat is out of the bag, feel free to give feedba=
ck, I have to finish the paper, apologies if it is not a topic for this lis=
t.
>
> Regards
>
> Chris D'Costa
>
>
>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:21, vv01f <vv01f@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>> Some users on bitcointalk[0] would like to have their vanity addresses
>> available for others easily to find and verify the ownership over a kind
>> of WoT. Right now they sign their own addresses and quote them in the
>> forums.
>> As I pointed out there already the centralized storage in the forums is
>> not secury anyhow and signed messages could be swapped easily with the
>> next hack of the forums.
>>
>> Is that use case taken care of in any plans already?
>>
>> I thought about abusing pgp keyservers but that would suit for single
>> vanity addresses only.
>> It seems webfinger could be part of a solution where servers of a
>> business can tell and proof you if a specific address is owned by them.
>>
>> [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D502538
>> [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D505095
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development