Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WQzAh-0001Wv-Ty for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:07:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WQzAg-0004qL-QU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:07:39 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id wp4so2370611obc.26 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.131.170 with SMTP id on10mr12443027obb.2.1395407251707; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:07:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140321122542.GA2686@netbook.cypherspace.org> References: <20140320121221.GA25052@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140321105906.GA1725@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140321122542.GA2686@netbook.cypherspace.org> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:07:31 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: N370zoAcnSZKAjRVHC3UhBCqcQ8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1e6768e236f04f51d9100 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WQzAg-0004qL-QU Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:07:40 -0000 --001a11c1e6768e236f04f51d9100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Maybe so, but given the relatively minor advantages of ECC certs I can see why a CA might not want to take any risks. They are sitting ducks for patent trolls. I think ECC will still happen, though we end up back into NSA fear territory thanks to the stupid way secp256r1 was defined. *Hopefully* there's no back door. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Back wrote: > According to Bernstein it's patent FUD (expired, ancient and solid prior > art). > > http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2013-August/005126.html > > Adam > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:33:57PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in the past, >> has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the Certicom >> ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still using >> RSA. >> > --001a11c1e6768e236f04f51d9100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Maybe so, but given the relatively minor advantages of ECC= certs I can see why a CA might not want to take any risks. They are sittin= g ducks for patent trolls.

I think ECC will still happen= , though we end up back into NSA fear territory thanks to the stupid way se= cp256r1 was defined. Hopefully=C2=A0there's no back door.


On Fri,= Mar 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
According to Bernstein it's patent FUD (= expired, ancient and solid prior
art).

http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cr= yptography/2013-August/005126.html

Adam


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:33:57PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
=C2=A0 Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in the past,=
=C2=A0 has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the Cert= icom
=C2=A0 ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still u= sing
=C2=A0 RSA.

--001a11c1e6768e236f04f51d9100--