Just to clarify, I'm not proposing anything to the protocol itself.
Simply that some applications might benefit from users being to sign
messages with existing Bitcoin identities, and what can we do to
accommodate that (out of band)? It's not a high priority, but I think
it's potentially useful, and most codebases already have everything they
need in place to implement it.
On 04/03/2012 04:04 PM, Peter Vessenes wrote:
I don't think it's minimally invasive to layer PGP's web of trust on
top of Bitcoin, in fact, the opposite.
From a certain angle, bitcoin exists as a sort of answer / alternate
solution to the web of trust. Digital cash with an existing web of
trust in place was a working concept in the mid-1990s, courtesy of
David Chaum, I believe.
I totally agree on the kitchen sink concern; I would personally like
to see something like a one-year required discussion period on all
non-security changes proposed to the blockchain protocol. We know
almost nothing about how bitcoin will be used over the next 20 years;
I believe it's a mistake to bulk up the protocol too rapidly right now.
There's a famous phrase from the founder of Lotus about Lotus'
engineering process: "add lightness." The equivalent for protocol
design might be "add simplicity." I'd like to see us adding simplicity
for now, getting a core set of tests together for alternate
implementations like libbitcoin, and thinking hard about the dangers
of cruft over a 10+ year period when it comes to a technology which
will necessarily include a complete history of every crufty decision
embodied in transaction histories.
Peter
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Wladimir <laa...@gmail.com
<mailto:laa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr <l...@dashjr.org
<mailto: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
<mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Peter J. Vessenes
CEO, CoinLab
M: 206.595.9839
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
