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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YEHga-0004tU-8U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:20:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YEHgZ-0006CX-3o
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:20:36 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id em10so21582403wid.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:20:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.126.99 with SMTP id mx3mr5250399wib.66.1421932829110;
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.9 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:20:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20150122004416.93EFDE27748@quidecco.de>
References: <CAJHLa0N6+hpwNECpHUSiKuj4-BYohh=Wr1DP=67Ff8xVBsi8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
<54760A50.201@riseup.net> <20141127020947.A13D2E19A09@quidecco.de>
<CAAS2fgRSxBmyDg5R7WgisB-XmhrpGVKHXQpchtL-Ow0xDQAziA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2JLUu9V4HGSLWr1Mg37qmTFVuihTQhJeJ4iyQPxrqsMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20141208161514.6C492E1B59B@quidecco.de>
<CANEZrP1Wh_98+47PmmHwSTDoSASw96R+Xnh5qWzROdmxPwO0Gw@mail.gmail.com>
<20150122004416.93EFDE27748@quidecco.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:20:29 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ECu5DAIxO6DEgBkWe-wSgnvsbNw
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2H8P0nh6224UKbnZ7EXrNE6jwM_SZSj6UaMn1QqWumDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a
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: 1YEHgZ-0006CX-3o
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P
network paper
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:20:36 -0000
--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I hear that. But I don't see why mainstream wallets and wallets
> designed for crypto research should not share a common core.
>
I think there was some misunderstanding. I was saying they *could and
should* share common cores, so we are in agreement without realising it :)
I also didn't mean to imply there was anything special about bitcoinj, just
that it's an example of a wallet engine that's already in use.
> BIP70 is interesting, indeed, although I still fail to understand why
> (according to the specs I saw) the PaymentRequest message is signed,
> but not the Payment message.
>
Because it's intended to be submitted via HTTPS. But what would you sign
the message with? Some arbitrary key bound to the transaction?
--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">I hear that. But I don't see why mainstream =
wallets and wallets<br>
designed for crypto research should not share a common core. <span class=3D=
""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think there was some misun=
derstanding. I was saying they <i>could and should</i>=C2=A0share common co=
res, so we are in agreement without realising it :) I also didn't mean =
to imply there was anything special about bitcoinj, just that it's an e=
xample of a wallet engine that's already in use.</div><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">BIP70 is interesting, indeed, although I sti=
ll fail to understand why<br>
(according to the specs I saw) the PaymentRequest message is signed,<br>
but not the Payment message.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because it=
's intended to be submitted via HTTPS. But what would you sign the mess=
age with? Some arbitrary key bound to the transaction?</div></div></div></d=
iv>
--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a--
|
