Re: [bitcoin-dev] KETAMINE: Multiple vulnerabilities in SecureRandom(), numerous cryptocurrency products affected.

On 09/04/18 22:17, Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > And specifically, here's a version of it that uses Arcfour: > https://gist.github.com/jonls/5230850 > > > On 09/04/18 22:11, Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: >> >> Here's the code in question:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] KETAMINE: Multiple vulnerabilities in SecureRandom(), numerous cryptocurrency products affected.

Here's the code in question: https://github.com/jasondavies/jsbn/pull/7 Best, Mustafa On 06/04/18 21:51, Matias Alejo Garcia via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Source? > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:53 PM, ketamine--- via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > A sign

Re: [bitcoin-dev] KETAMINE: Multiple vulnerabilities in SecureRandom(), numerous cryptocurrency products affected.

And specifically, here's a version of it that uses Arcfour: https://gist.github.com/jonls/5230850 On 09/04/18 22:11, Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: > > Here's the code in question: https://github.com/jasondavies/jsbn/pull/7 > > Best, > > Mustafa > > > On 06/04/18 21:51, Matias Alejo Garcia via bitcoin-

Re: [bitcoin-dev] AsicBoost

are thing. It cannot be detected > from outside if miner uses this improvement or not. So patenting it is > worthless. > > slush > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] AsicBoost

Alternatively scenario: it will cause a sudden increase of Bitcoin mines in countries where the algorithm is not patented, possibly causing a geographical decentralization of miners from countries that already have a lot of miners like China (if it is patented in China). On 01/04/16 10:00, Peter T

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

; On 10/03/16 15:59, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" >> wrote: >> >> > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork >> > becoming active. But I can envision a s

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On 10/03/16 15:59, Jorge Timón wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork > > becomin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

On 10/03/16 00:53, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:29:16 AM Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: >>> the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork >>> has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. >> This wording is awkward. What is "potentially-majority

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

It would be nice to decouple the venue, but even BIP 1 gives that control to whoever controls the mailing list: "Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bitcoin-dev list and the BIP editor with the draft BIP." (BIP 1) A neater way to do it might be to replace references to the m

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final

> the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. This wording is awkward. What is "potentially-majority"? >A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy, particularly including those selling desirab