Hi Alan,
I am using an approach similar to your proposal in a service I am developing. I
have, however, chosen to sign using the following scheme:
1. take sha512 of document (=hash512)
2. take ripemd160 of hash512
3. create 512 bit data structure, where the first 352bits are '0', and the rest
is
Alan,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:
> **
> There is all this fanfare around P2SH and how multi-sig is the solution to
> all these security problems, but how the hell do you use it? I believe
> that BIP 10 (or successor) is *critical *to the success of multi-sig,
> because t
Alan, I'm coming in late to the conversation - do I understand that BIP 010
does not propose any changes to the protocol - but just an intermediate
data format that other clients might use to collect the need key material
to sign a multi-signature block?
If so - one might ask what the role of BIP'
Mike,
You make an excellent point. Neither of these proposals impact the
protocol itself. I hadn't considered that. But I think it's a
critically important problem to solve (signature blocks, not so much,
but it could piggy back on the same solution).So the mailing list is
a good place
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 usef
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
On 04/03/2012 02:46 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: signature blocks and BIP 10:
>
> We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should
> extend existing standards whenever possible.
>
> So: could we encode signature blocks or BIP-10 transactions using
> S/MIME ? Or is there a mor
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr 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 ?
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 ?
RE: signature blocks and BIP 10:
We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should
extend existing standards whenever possible.
So: could we encode signature blocks or BIP-10 transactions using
S/MIME ? Or is there a more appropriate "sign a message" standard we
could/should us
On Monday, April 02, 2012 4:55:03 PM Alan Reiner wrote:
> Any thoughts? (I have no doubts that there are :) )
IMO, the sign-request URI should be an extension on the existing bitcoin: URI
scheme; this way, sigNeeded can be omitted to imply "sign with a sending
address".
---
I would like to propose two things that are closely related. I will
start making BIPS if there's positive feedback. Sorry it's so long, but
I felt both should be in the same email...
_*(1) Signature Blocks* -- A more-robust, versatile, message-signing
exchange_
Satoshi client 0.6.0 intro
12 matches
Mail list logo
