1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <chris.dcosta@meek.io>) id 1WUtpn-0006CB-Jo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:14:15 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WUtpl-0001jy-Uh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:14:15 +0000
Received: from mfilter23-d.gandi.net (mfilter23-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.151])
by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B632BFB8DC
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:14:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter23-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198])
by mfilter23-d.gandi.net (mfilter23-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180])
(amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uizMaEOx1VCk
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:13:35 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 94.224.235.124
Received: from 94-224-235-124.access.telenet.be
(94-224-235-124.access.telenet.be [94.224.235.124])
(Authenticated sender: chris.dcosta@meek.io)
by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C3A2FB8D5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:13:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Chris D'Costa <chris.dcosta@meek.io>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--726499229
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:13:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20140331185751.GD59714@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <5339418F.1050800@riseup.net>
<CAJHLa0M8ryBpaPF7aoqZdyrw4NsKizdVPkdy+DsWfPjWVyzadA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140331185751.GD59714@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Message-Id: <DBE4339F-0F27-4D18-91FC-4685E5AFB387@meek.io>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1WUtpl-0001jy-Uh
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
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, 01 Apr 2014 08:14:15 -0000
--Apple-Mail-2--726499229
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:57, Roy Badami wrote:
> Is namecoin actively maintained these days?
That's a very good quest. It was one of the reasons why we ruled out =
namecoin, but not the only one.
Although in principle it is a similar concept to namecoin + PGP, in =
practice at least for our device, that felt like a hammer to crack a =
nut, "How could this operate if the device was carried to one of the =
non-3G countries i.e. with no direct internet access? How could we =
syncronise the chain in a low bandwidth environment, if at all? Could at =
least some of the chain be pre-loaded at the factory? What would the =
risks be if it was?".=20
These are just a few of the practical considerations that we are =
addressing, and our feeling is that when we can get the proposed =
distributed ledger to work properly at "the lowest common denominator" =
level, then everything above is easier.=20
On one other point, I don't ever see the Bitcoin software using a second =
blockchain, like namecoin, in order just to provide safe communication =
of a non-face-to-face, person-to-person, pay-to address (far too many =
hyphens), but I do see some other standard emerging that provides the =
equivalent of BIP70 for this use case. =20
In this context, when we posed these questions, "Why do we have to =
provide a reward for a ledger of information? Why do we have to wait for =
confirmation when no money is at risk? What is the worst that can happen =
if your device key is discovered or replaced?", it did not make sense to =
include all the incumbent coin stuff just to arrive at a distributed =
ledger for a set of ultimately disposable keys.=
--Apple-Mail-2--726499229
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div>On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:57, Roy Badami wrote:</div><div><div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; =
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: =
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Is namecoin =
actively maintained these =
days?</span></blockquote></div><br></div><div>That's a very good quest. =
It was one of the reasons why we ruled out namecoin, but not the only =
one.<div><br></div><div>Although in principle it is a similar concept to =
namecoin + PGP, in practice at least for our device, that felt like a =
hammer to crack a nut, "How could this operate if the device was carried =
to one of the non-3G countries i.e. with no direct internet access? How =
could we syncronise the chain in a low bandwidth environment, if at all? =
Could at least some of the chain be pre-loaded at the factory? What =
would the risks be if it was?". </div><div><br></div><div>These are =
just a few of the practical considerations that we are addressing, and =
our feeling is that when we can get the proposed distributed ledger to =
work properly at "the lowest common denominator" level, then everything =
above is easier. </div><div><br></div><div>On one other point, I =
don't ever see the Bitcoin software using a second blockchain, like =
namecoin, in order just to provide safe communication of a =
non-face-to-face, person-to-person, pay-to address (far too many =
hyphens), but I do see some other standard emerging that provides the =
equivalent of BIP70 for this use case. =
</div><div><br></div><div>In this context, when we posed these =
questions, "Why do we have to provide a reward for a ledger of =
information? Why do we have to wait for confirmation when no money is at =
risk? What is the worst that can happen if your device key is discovered =
or replaced?", it did not make sense to include all the incumbent coin =
stuff just to arrive at a distributed ledger for a set of ultimately =
disposable keys.</div></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-2--726499229--
|
