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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1XMRic-0003Ja-T0
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:08:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.176; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XMRiZ-0004Et-JG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:08:10 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id tr6so12694871ieb.35
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.33.100 with SMTP id q4mr26211808igi.8.1409101682262; Tue,
26 Aug 2014 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.14.67 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzHBKndU4nHHK=h4=G+hG_t_c77h0DHpeEUK+Kk9q2CsRHEcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzHBKndU4nHHK=h4=G+hG_t_c77h0DHpeEUK+Kk9q2CsRHEcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:08:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTV9hj1otAQZpF3tE+goNu591gj_mcoHrNCPBbVHuuz6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mem Wallet <memwallet.info@gmail.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
(gmaxwell[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: 1XMRiZ-0004Et-JG
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] standardize on bitcoin signed ecies ?
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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:08:11 -0000
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Mem Wallet <memwallet.info@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone see a value in a standardized PGP-style message,
> which would allow someone performing a bitcoin transaction to
> send signed encrypted messages using only public and private
> bitcoin keys ?
>
> I'd like to propose a signed encrypted message protocol, in case
> someone see's value in encoding such a thing into a BIP.
Using the same keys for signing and encryption is generally considered
a bad practice, for a number of reasons.
If the keys aren't the same, there is much less reason to use
something specific to Bitcoin.
Getting all the details right in an encryption implementation is very
difficulty, previously published efforts in Bitcoin software have been
_severely_ flawed and insecure. I am not confident that an effort
right now would receive adequate review.
|
