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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YqsqM-0007NF-CL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 09 May 2015 00:42:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqsqL-0007Cn-FT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 09 May 2015 00:42:14 +0000
Received: by iget9 with SMTP id t9so40557967ige.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 08 May 2015 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.126.10 with SMTP id c10mr792729ics.66.1431132128195; Fri,
08 May 2015 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.15.82 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 17:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH+jCTy=BF4g=7yTFYind3ZNiWz4uLo1puv1+RURi=26oqcD1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.63969.1431119326.18600.bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
<CAH+jCTye9QNVV8bv6ZAgEPcrE5K1J-q7gONE_m1x81+-5mpWHA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH+jCTwxjfEVog4JR+8kCvbBPoT50f322NV3T+8Bz-sTnK-yXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH+jCTy=BF4g=7yTFYind3ZNiWz4uLo1puv1+RURi=26oqcD1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 00:42:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTA21W9T=2Nmy+zQp2AhG5Gk+vF=w5X5Pm3ohZz7pJNVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YqsqL-0007Cn-FT
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48,
Issue 41
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: Sat, 09 May 2015 00:42:14 -0000
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...of the following:
>
> the DH_GENERATION would in effect calculate the reponses for a total
> overage of the public component, by addding a ternary option in the actual
> DH key (which I have attached to sse if you can iunderstand my logic)
[snip code]
Intriguing; and certainly a change of the normal pace around here.
> where w represents the weight of the total number of semantical
> constraints that an idivdual has expressed throught emotivoe packets that I
> am working on (implementation os difficutlt). I think this is the
> appropriate route to implemeting a greating block size that will be used in
> preventing interception of bundled informations and replace value. Client
> side implmentation will cut down transaction fees for the additional 264 bit
> implementation and greatly reduce need for ewallet providers to do so.
In these posts I am reminded of and sense some qualitative
similarities with a 2012 proposal by Mr. NASDAQEnema of Bitcointalk
with respect to multigenerational token architectures. In particula,r
your AES ModuleK Hashcodes (especially in light of Winternitz
compression) may constitute an L_2 norm attractor similar to the
motherbase birthpoint metric presented in that prior work. Rethaw and
I provided a number of points for consideration which may be equally
applicable to your work:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57253.msg682056#msg682056
Your invocation of emotive packets suggests that you may be a
colleague of Mr. Virtuli Beatnik? While not (yet) recognized as a
star developer himself; his eloquent language and his mastery of skb
crypto-calculus and differential-kernel number-ontologies demonstrated
in his latest publication ( https://archive.org/details/EtherealVerses
) makes me think that he'd be an ideal collaborator for your work in
this area.
|
