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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Wnjev-0005Ue-F6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 23 May 2014 07:12:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wnjeu-0005Qt-Jc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 23 May 2014 07:12:53 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id at1so4700098iec.14
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 23 May 2014 00:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.109.8 with SMTP id j8mr240375icp.89.1400829166905; Fri,
23 May 2014 00:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.22.168 with HTTP; Fri, 23 May 2014 00:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NNMKW57r2cRsu3a1UFSf5MSp-EWATqf--DKTe-=n26CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJBNWh0Py9KB4Y+B19ACeHOygtkLrPw5SbZ0SrVs50pqvg@mail.gmail.com>
<7B48B9D4-5FB0-42CA-A462-C20D3F345A9A@beams.io>
<CA+s+GJC8=OHmmF7fc-fT8fQDWE1uNcCS8-ELEKr0MjQ4CpbPBA@mail.gmail.com>
<537D0CE1.3000608@monetize.io>
<CAAS2fgSN00Y2XUqLoft9=Fq1GfWvSYQfXdD=RE8890iOU5asRQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NNMKW57r2cRsu3a1UFSf5MSp-EWATqf--DKTe-=n26CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:12:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBJKQqsJHzdHvw0-r3mmvbRMDpUrWFj2O2-RXkpgGLO7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.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
(laanwj[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
X-Headers-End: 1Wnjeu-0005Qt-Jc
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] PSA: Please sign your git commits
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: Fri, 23 May 2014 07:12:53 -0000
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> Related: Current multi-sig wallet technology being rolled out now,
> with 2FA and other fancy doodads, is now arguably more secure than my
> PGP keyring. My PGP keyring is, to draw an analogy, a non-multisig
> wallet (set of keys), with all the associated theft/data
> destruction/backup risks.
>
> The more improvements I see in bitcoin wallets, the more antiquated my
> PGP keyring appears. Zero concept of multisig. The PGP keyring
> compromise process is rarely exercised. 2FA is lacking. At least
> offline signing works well. Mostly.
Would be incredible to have multisig for git commits as well. I don't
think git supports multiple signers for one commit at this point -
amending the signature replaces the last one - but it would allow for
some interesting multi-factor designs in which the damage when a dev's
computer is compromised would be reduced.
Sounds like a lot of work to get a good workflow there, though.
My mail about single-signing commits was already longer than I
expected when I started writing there. Even though the process is
really simple.
Though if anyone's interest is piqued by this, please pick it up.
Wladimir
|
