Mike Koss [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03 📝 Original message:Alan, I'm coming in late ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03
📝 Original message: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's are if they actually do not
impact the protocol?
If there is any encapsulated data format that is expected to be interpreted
by clients - I'd call that a "protocol change"; but I take it in this
instance that you will transmit these signature block out of band from the
client ... yet they would have to be parsed and converted into a
Transaction Script once collected by SOME client? Would we expect the
standard client do so?
Sorry if this has been discussed before - I'm trying to understand the
proposal.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi at gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> 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 <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at 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 at 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 listBitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.nethttps://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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--
Mike Koss
CTO, CoinLab
(425) 246-7701 (m)
A Bitcoin Primer <http://coinlab.com/a-bitcoin-primer.pdf>; - What you need
to know about Bitcoins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/84a5db0d/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message: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's are if they actually do not
impact the protocol?
If there is any encapsulated data format that is expected to be interpreted
by clients - I'd call that a "protocol change"; but I take it in this
instance that you will transmit these signature block out of band from the
client ... yet they would have to be parsed and converted into a
Transaction Script once collected by SOME client? Would we expect the
standard client do so?
Sorry if this has been discussed before - I'm trying to understand the
proposal.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi at gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> 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 <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at 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 at 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 listBitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.nethttps://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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--
Mike Koss
CTO, CoinLab
(425) 246-7701 (m)
A Bitcoin Primer <http://coinlab.com/a-bitcoin-primer.pdf>; - What you need
to know about Bitcoins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/84a5db0d/attachment.html>;