On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:46:17 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should
> > extend existing standards whenever possible.
>
> I wonder if it's possible to make sigs compatible with PGP/EC ?
>
Or we could take a step back, further into "don't reinvent the wheel"
territory. Why not simply make use of PGP(/EC) to sign and verify messages?
It has many advantages, like an already existing web-of-trust and keyserver
infrastructure.
I still feel like this is sign message stuff is dragging the kitchen sink
into Bitcoin. It's fine for logging into a website, what you use it for,
but anything that approaches signing email (such as S/MIME implementations
and handling different character encodings) is going too far IMO.
Wladimir
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
resolution app monitoring today. Free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
