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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CANEZrP3nQfvDArKTRgje0Cus4G2JD_zpxSjA3fXfxM2TNAP80Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALDj+BafD+6KTNcYDBEu5gNPzYozSkiC-JCxrY-PzXL2DYBRsw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0N4J_Z907+D0ENSNKfNAW2N=7Jf4JzSCO=SU558GtGTzA@mail.gmail.com>
<lge7nk$3mf$2@ger.gmane.org>
<CANEZrP0J849oDvMWjf8LWi0xj44Q8DaUwDip5_smVBMNgeQ3mw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140320121221.GA25052@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<lgh438$tnn$1@ger.gmane.org>
<20140321105906.GA1725@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<CANEZrP2bG_r08vYDZZY4Hg6M+tZFzyQj7SVQ1syZwgv=+F=DqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1=69DsDoBC6DmD+ZfwV2nEW2JcJbDy4PHoUYxbQYNzeg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140321122542.GA2686@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:07:31 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: N370zoAcnSZKAjRVHC3UhBCqcQ8
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2ohPfyZ_u9boS_3MEgE67-hW3GgpWc8xxdOeh9EKQP9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
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: <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: 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 <adam@cypherspace.org> 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
<div dir=3D"ltr">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.<div><br></div><div>I think ECC will still happen=
, though we end up back into NSA fear territory thanks to the stupid way se=
cp256r1 was defined. <i>Hopefully</i>=C2=A0there's no back door.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri,=
Mar 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></span=
> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">According to Bernstein it's patent FUD (=
expired, ancient and solid prior<br>
art).<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2013-August/00=
5126.html" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.randombit.net/<u></u>pipermail/cr=
yptography/2013-<u></u>August/005126.html</a><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font c=
olor=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
Adam</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:33:57PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=C2=A0 Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in the past,=
<br>
=C2=A0 has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the Cert=
icom<br>
=C2=A0 ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still u=
sing<br>
=C2=A0 RSA.<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c1e6768e236f04f51d9100--
|
