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
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <chris.dcosta@meek.io>) id 1WUxqz-00021Z-Se
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:31:46 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WUxqy-0004qG-2t
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:31:45 +0000
Received: from mfilter31-d.gandi.net (mfilter31-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.162])
by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02FE17208C;
Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:31:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter31-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196])
by mfilter31-d.gandi.net (mfilter31-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180])
(amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id fMn391HOEhC1; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:31:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 178.50.86.156
Received: from [10.53.22.156] (ptra-178-50-86-156.mobistar.be [178.50.86.156])
(Authenticated sender: chris.dcosta@meek.io)
by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDA96172089;
Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:31:31 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <5339418F.1050800@riseup.net>
<51C10069-5C3B-462A-9184-669ABC6CD9D0@meek.io>
<CAJHLa0MfV0RnVh1niG4vUGUUvB_Vd8HccTys4bf1ApnwuBUd1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris D'Costa <chris.dcosta@meek.io>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MfV0RnVh1niG4vUGUUvB_Vd8HccTys4bf1ApnwuBUd1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C818247C-6422-4F55-A324-826EC5C6A455@meek.io>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:20:37 +0200
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B651)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1WUxqy-0004qG-2t
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 12:31:46 -0000
The code will be available as soon as we are ready, and apologies again for i=
t not being a more meaningful conversation - I did say I hesitated about pos=
ting it ;)
I think it is fair to say that we have not assumed anything about other tech=
nologies, without asking if they can answer all (not just some) of the quest=
ions I raised. I have yet to be convinced that anything existing meets those=
requirements, namecoin included, hence why we are looking at creating an al=
ternative (non-coin by the way) but this alternative has some of the import=
ant properties that the distributed ledger provides.
To answer the question about expiry, we're looking at something we'll call p=
roof-of-life for the device keys. In a nutshell on of the pieces of informat=
ion stored with the device public key will be a last heard from date - a dat=
e which is sent only by the device from time to time. Records that are expir=
ed are devices that have not been heard from for a given period (to be decid=
ed). As the device keys are not related to the Bitcoin keys it will be safe t=
o expire a device key by default. An expired device would require reinitiali=
sation, which would make a new device key set, a new proof of life date and t=
hen the Bitcoin keys (BIP32) can be restored.=20
Regards
Chris D'Costa
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Apr 2014, at 13:32, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
>=20
> Re-reading this, even with the most recent message, is still isn't
> clear _precisely_ how your technology works, or why it is better than
> namecoin. User profiles (and distributed ledgers) need to reflect the
> latest updates, and a stream of updates of over time is precisely what
> bitcoin technology secures.
>=20
> Keys expire or are compromised, and the public ledger needs to reflect
> that. There is a lot of computer science involved in making sure the
> public ledger you see is not an outdated view. A log-like stream of
> changes is not the only way to do things, but other methods need less
> hand-wavy details (show the code) before they are well recognized as
> useful.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Chris D'Costa <chris.dcosta@meek.io> wro=
te:
>> 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.
>>=20
>> I have yet to finish the paper but in a nutshell it uses a decentralised l=
edger of, what we refer to as, "device keys".
>>=20
>> 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 iden=
tify 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 think it is=
this that would allow you to communicate a pay-to address to someone withou=
t seeing them in a secure way.
>>=20
>> 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 sens=
e : advanced knowledge of all pubkeys. Indeed all devices could easily check=
their own record to identify problems on the ledger.
>>=20
>> There is of course more to this, but I like to refer to the "distributed l=
edger of device keys" as the "Web-of-trust re-imagined" although that isn't s=
trictly true.
>>=20
>> 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 list=
.
>>=20
>> Regards
>>=20
>> Chris D'Costa
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:21, vv01f <vv01f@riseup.net> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> Is that use case taken care of in any plans already?
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> [0] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D502538
>>> [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D505095
>>>=20
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>=20
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
