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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1SF9d5-0002NV-0g
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:42:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.175; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-gy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SF9d4-0005P8-7d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:42:58 +0000
Received: by ghbz2 with SMTP id z2so62293ghb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.80.105 with SMTP id j69mr12408545yhe.93.1333482172880;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.175.103 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201204031455.42265.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <4F7A1227.7070306@gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3MQzJ5gN5xTZ9y5d-og11=mB86cM3ZP4S-fhjs1U+20g@mail.gmail.com>
<201204031455.42265.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:42:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCKcOky=Kfa9cNaEnpO0Lj4Va8a8N=-OZSoXLoO8aUGgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30050bfc3a960104bccb83a6
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SF9d4-0005P8-7d
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests
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, 03 Apr 2012 19:42:59 -0000
--20cf30050bfc3a960104bccb83a6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:46:17 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should
> > extend existing standards whenever possible.
>
> I wonder if it's possible to make sigs compatible with PGP/EC ?
>
Or we could take a step back, further into "don't reinvent the wheel"
territory. Why not simply make use of PGP(/EC) to sign and verify messages?
It has many advantages, like an already existing web-of-trust and keyserver
infrastructure.
I still feel like this is sign message stuff is dragging the kitchen sink
into Bitcoin. It's fine for logging into a website, what you use it for,
but anything that approaches signing email (such as S/MIME implementations
and handling different character encodings) is going too far IMO.
Wladimir
--20cf30050bfc3a960104bccb83a6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>>=
;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:46:17 PM Gavin Andresen wrot=
e:<br>
> We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should<br=
>
> extend existing standards whenever possible.<br>
<br>
</div>I wonder if it's possible to make sigs compatible with PGP/EC ?<b=
r></blockquote><div><br>Or we could take a step back, further into "do=
n't reinvent the wheel" territory. Why not simply make use of PGP(=
/EC) to sign and verify messages? It has many advantages, like an already e=
xisting web-of-trust and keyserver infrastructure.<br>
<br>I still feel like this is sign message stuff is dragging the kitchen si=
nk into Bitcoin. It's fine for logging into a website, what you use it =
for, but anything that approaches signing email (such as S/MIME implementat=
ions and handling different character encodings) is going too far IMO. <br>
<br>Wladimir<br><br></div></div>
--20cf30050bfc3a960104bccb83a6--
|
