Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-09-12 📝 Original message:Your example doesn't have ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-09-12
📝 Original message:Your example doesn't have an address in it at all, so isn't compatible with
non-BIP70 wallets. Maybe for QRcodes specifically there are no longer any
such wallets out there. For clickable links it can still be an issue.
> I thought SHA1 has a bad reputation these days, and we don't save much
> by using it. I don't know anything about Murmur. MD5 is clearly broken.
> What hash function would you recommend?
>
Can just truncate SHA256, I think.
> It is. People can't check names. People don't want to check names.
>
Their wallet checks the name, though. It sees:
bitcoin:1AbCd?r=https://bitpay.com/r/12345
and the wallet verifies that the presented certificate is for CN=bitpay.com
> People can't get certificates for lots of reasons. X.509 is centralized.
> X.509 has had serious security issues in the past. And shit continues to
> happen.
>
Well, I wrote an article that argues with this PoV:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-you-think-the-pki-sucks-b64cf5912aa7
No disagreement that it's a more complex mechanism. But seeing as we end up
depending on it anyway the moment you load any kind of web page to find out
the URI, adding another mechanism only increases complexity, it doesn't
remove any.
Sure. But signing is harder than just calculating a hash.
Well, again, it saves qrcode bytes. You don't have to include a dedicated
hash. The existing address hash can double up as both a backwards
compatibility measure, and also an auth mechanism.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140912/a762740b/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Your example doesn't have an address in it at all, so isn't compatible with
non-BIP70 wallets. Maybe for QRcodes specifically there are no longer any
such wallets out there. For clickable links it can still be an issue.
> I thought SHA1 has a bad reputation these days, and we don't save much
> by using it. I don't know anything about Murmur. MD5 is clearly broken.
> What hash function would you recommend?
>
Can just truncate SHA256, I think.
> It is. People can't check names. People don't want to check names.
>
Their wallet checks the name, though. It sees:
bitcoin:1AbCd?r=https://bitpay.com/r/12345
and the wallet verifies that the presented certificate is for CN=bitpay.com
> People can't get certificates for lots of reasons. X.509 is centralized.
> X.509 has had serious security issues in the past. And shit continues to
> happen.
>
Well, I wrote an article that argues with this PoV:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-you-think-the-pki-sucks-b64cf5912aa7
No disagreement that it's a more complex mechanism. But seeing as we end up
depending on it anyway the moment you load any kind of web page to find out
the URI, adding another mechanism only increases complexity, it doesn't
remove any.
Sure. But signing is harder than just calculating a hash.
Well, again, it saves qrcode bytes. You don't have to include a dedicated
hash. The existing address hash can double up as both a backwards
compatibility measure, and also an auth mechanism.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140912/a762740b/attachment.html>;