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
81
82
83
|
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 <brian.erdelyi@gmail.com>) id 1YIjnO-0001ml-Gw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:10:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.48; envelope-from=brian.erdelyi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qa0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YIjnN-0004hM-KL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:10:02 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v8so35401795qal.7
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:09:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.224.80.135 with SMTP id t7mr56324652qak.65.1422994196253;
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.58] ([64.147.83.112])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
103sm20701456qgg.11.2015.02.03.12.09.55
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Brian Erdelyi <brian.erdelyi@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFVoEQQHVcY0Ad-4c2wnH+WF_7M-o5SNwVr-nce_9bQ794cwDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:09:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D5F8FC20-C6E9-4C42-A5C5-24B337EE7F95@gmail.com>
References: <etPan.54d0b945.46e87ccd.7f23@Williams-MBP>
<CAFVoEQQHVcY0Ad-4c2wnH+WF_7M-o5SNwVr-nce_9bQ794cwDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Weiss <adam@signal11.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
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
(brian.erdelyi[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
0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YIjnN-0004hM-KL
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Subject: Re: Proposal to address Bitcoin
malware
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: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:10:02 -0000
> Regardless, I think a standard for passing partially signed =
transactions around might make sense (maybe a future extension to =
BIP70), with attention to both PC <-> small hardware devices and pushing =
stuff around on the Internet. It would be great if users had a choice =
of hardware signing devices, local software and third-party cosigning =
services that would all interoperate out of the box to enable easy =
multisig security, which in the BTC world subsumes the goals of 2FA.
I think a standard for passing partially signed transactions is a great =
idea as well. This would support interoperability of wallets/clients =
and third-party services (if users choose to use them).
Brian Erdelyi=
|
