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 ) id 1SFJdL-0002uF-UQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:23:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-yx0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SFJdJ-0000O2-OZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:23:55 +0000 Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so259151yen.34 for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.125.4 with SMTP id c4mr4250464ann.52.1333520628300; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.175.103 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F7B8F46.8060706@gmail.com> References: <4F7A1227.7070306@gmail.com> <201204031455.42265.luke@dashjr.org> <4F7B67D6.7090101@gmail.com> <4F7B8F46.8060706@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:23:48 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Alan Reiner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636ed6bda59bbb504bcd477d4 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1SFJdJ-0000O2-OZ Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:23:56 -0000 --001636ed6bda59bbb504bcd477d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Alan, On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Alan Reiner wrote: > ** > There is all this fanfare around P2SH and how multi-sig is the solution to > all these security problems, but how the hell do you use it? I believe > that BIP 10 (or successor) is *critical *to the success of multi-sig, > because the greatest barrier to using multi-sig will be the ability to > actually execute them in less than 14 steps. And if every client > implements it differently, there's even less chance it will be used > (assuming the userbase reaches any level of client diversity). > That is a laudable goal. So your proposal is about signing "Preformatted messages from sites" to make financial transactions more secure, not arbitrary user-to-user messages such as email. That really restricts the scope, which is good. In this case there is no use for S/MIME, which deals with encoding/signing multipart mail messages. And no need to deal with MIME headers, html, or embedded images, and such. And we can simply require one character encoding, no need to support hundreds. The "request signing" bitcoin URL makes sense in my eyes. Less copy/pasting is good. Do mind that there is usually a URL size limit (depending on the browser) so this cannot be used for long messages/contracts. A possible solution would be to make an option to pass the address where the message can be retrieved (and maybe also where the signature must be sent, to save a copy-paste back?). Looking at existing solutions, the only other "sign request" that I know of is the CSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_signing_request) but the functionality and goal is very different. It'd be useful (and IMO most important) to write down some use-cases in which this makes P2SH easier and less involved. How many steps can be eliminated of the 14? Wladimir BTW: we also still need a BIP to define URL signing / authentication itself. --001636ed6bda59bbb504bcd477d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alan,

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Ala= n Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
There is all this fanfare aroun= d P2SH and how multi-sig is the solution to all these security problems, but how the hell do you use it?=C2=A0 I believe that BIP 10 (or successor) is critical to the success of multi-sig, because the greatest barrier to using multi-sig will be the ability to actually execute them in less than 14 steps.=C2=A0 And if every client implements it differently, there= 9;s even less chance it will be used (assuming the userbase reaches any level of client diversity).=C2=A0=C2=A0
That is a=C2=A0laudable=C2=A0goal.=C2=A0

So=C2=A0your proposal is about signing "Preformatted messages from = sites" to make financial transactions more secure, not arbitrary user-= to-user messages such as email. That really restricts the scope, which is g= ood.

In this case there is no use for S/MIME, which deals wi= th encoding/signing multipart mail messages. And=C2=A0no need to deal with = MIME headers, html, or embedded images, and such. And we can simply require= one character encoding, no need to support hundreds.

The "request signing" bitcoin URL makes sense= in my eyes. Less copy/pasting is good. Do mind that there is usually a URL= size limit (depending on the browser) so this cannot be used for long mess= ages/contracts. A possible solution would be to make an option to pass the = address where the message can be retrieved (and maybe also where the signat= ure must be sent, to save a copy-paste back?).

Looking at existing solutions, the only other "sig= n request" that I know of is the CSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certifi= cate_signing_request) but the functionality and goal is very different.=

It'd be useful (and IMO most important) to write do= wn some use-cases in which this makes P2SH easier and less involved. How ma= ny steps can be eliminated of the 14?

Wladimir
BTW: we also still need a BIP to define URL signing / authentication i= tself.=C2=A0

--001636ed6bda59bbb504bcd477d4--