Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XTXao-000335-9o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.170; envelope-from=brianchoffman@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XTXai-0007k6-Ay for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:26 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id fp1so6440727pdb.1 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.70.41.10 with SMTP id b10mr13200382pdl.72.1410792554541; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.55.167 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140913135528.GC6333@muck> <20140914062826.GB21586@muck> <201409150923.02817.thomas@thomaszander.se> <3E354504-0203-4408-85A1-58A071E8546A@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:49:14 -0400 Message-ID: From: Brian Hoffman To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5 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 (brianchoffman[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: 1XTXai-0007k6-Ay Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Does anyone have anything at all signed by Satoshi's PGP key? 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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:26 -0000 --047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it holds true for now. I also never said the actual credential you receive from a government agency is trustable. I completely agree that they are forgeable and not necessarily reliable. That was not my point. I was referring to the vetting process before issuance. Just as you have behavioral characteristics online that contribute to trusting an "identity" you also exhibit in person attributes, such as physically being in a specific location at a certain time or blue eyes or biometrics, that are valuable. You simply cannot capture those in an online-only world. I don't see how you can deny the value there. You are most certainly and undeniably the expert in the Bitcoin context here so I will not even attempt to argue with you on that, but I just think it's not realistic to ignore the value of an in-person network in other contexts. You called it "geek wanking" with no qualifier "in the Bitcoin context" so excuse me if I misunderstood your intent. On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi. > > "value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable"... no it is > quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain > output, code. The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not > bitcoin continues to function. > > The currency of bitcoin development is code, and electronic messages > describing cryptographic theses. _That_ is the relevant fingerprint. > > Governmental id is second class, can be forged or simply present a > different individual from that who is online. PGP WoT wanking does > not solve that problem at all. > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Brian Hoffman > wrote: > > I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but > to dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle. > > > > The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because > your risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go see > if you can get any kind of governmental clearance of credential without > in-person vetting. Ask them if they accept your behavioral signature. > > > > I know there is a lot of PGP hating these days but this comment doesn't > necessarily apply to every situation. > > > > > > > >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander > wrote: > >>> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust > or sign > >>> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without seeing > that > >>> person in real life, verifying their identity etc. > >> > >> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless and > >> stupid geek wanking. > >> > >> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant. We know how > >> Satoshi coded and wrote. It was the online Satoshi with which we > >> interacted. The online Satoshi's PGP signature would be fine... > >> assuming he established a pattern of use. > >> > >> As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key signed > >> by the online entity known as "sipa." At a bitcoin conf I met a > >> person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claimed to be sipa, > >> but that could have been an actor. Absent a laborious and boring > >> signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a supercomputing > >> cluster of 500 gnomes. > >> > >> The point is, the "online entity known as Satoshi" is the relevant > >> fingerprint. That is easily established without any in-person > >> meetings. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Garzik > >> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > >> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Want excitement? > >> Manually upgrade your production database. > >> When you want reliability, choose Perforce > >> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. > >> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bitcoin-development mailing list > >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > --047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it h= olds true for now.

I also never said the actual credenti= al you receive from a government agency is trustable. I completely agree th= at they are forgeable and not necessarily reliable. That was not my point. = I was referring to the vetting process before issuance.

Just as you have behavioral characteristics online that contribute to= trusting an "identity" you also exhibit in person attributes, su= ch as physically being in a specific location at a certain time or blue eye= s or biometrics, that are valuable. You simply cannot capture those in an o= nline-only world. I don't see how you can deny the value there.

You are most certainly and undeniably the expert in the B= itcoin context here so I will not even attempt to argue with you on that, b= ut I just think it's not realistic to ignore the value of an in-person = network in other contexts. You called it "geek wanking" with no q= ualifier "in the Bitcoin context" so excuse me if I misunderstood= your intent.=C2=A0

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Garzik = <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi.

"value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable"...=C2=A0 n= o it is
quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain
output, code.=C2=A0 The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not=
bitcoin continues to function.

The currency of bitcoin development is code, and electronic messages
describing cryptographic theses.=C2=A0 _That_ is the relevant fingerprint.<= br>
Governmental id is second class, can be forged or simply present a
different individual from that who is online.=C2=A0 PGP WoT wanking does not solve that problem at all.






On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but= to dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle.=
>
> The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because= your risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go = see if you can get any kind of governmental clearance of credential without= in-person vetting. Ask them if they accept your behavioral signature.
>
> I know there is a lot of PGP hating these days but this comment doesn&= #39;t necessarily apply to every situation.
>
>
>
>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se> wrote:
>>> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should n= ot trust or sign
>>> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without = seeing that
>>> person in real life, verifying their identity etc.
>>
>> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless an= d
>> stupid geek wanking.
>>
>> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant.=C2=A0 We= know how
>> Satoshi coded and wrote.=C2=A0 It was the online Satoshi with whic= h we
>> interacted.=C2=A0 The online Satoshi's PGP signature would be = fine...
>> assuming he established a pattern of use.
>>
>> As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key sign= ed
>> by the online entity known as "sipa."=C2=A0 At a bitcoin= conf I met a
>> person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claime= d to be sipa,
>> but that could have been an actor.=C2=A0 Absent a laborious and bo= ring
>> signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a s= upercomputing
>> cluster of 500 gnomes.
>>
>> The point is, the "online entity known as Satoshi" is th= e relevant
>> fingerprint.=C2=A0 That is easily established without any in-perso= n
>> meetings.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Garzik
>> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
>> BitPay, Inc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://bitpay.com/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------
>> Want excitement?
>> Manually upgrade your production database.
>> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
>> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclic= k.net/gampad/clk?id=3D157508191&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitco= in-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/b= itcoin-development



--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://bitpay.com/

--047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5--