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>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] secure assigned bitcoin address directory
Precedence: list


--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?".&nbsp;</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.&nbsp;</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. =
&nbsp;</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--