Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-20 📝 Original message:> > In my previous post, I ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-20
📝 Original message:>
> In my previous post, I was suggesting to *not* include the proof in the
> request, because the payer can download it independently. Only the final
> signature is needed. What makes DNSSEC interesting is not the size of
> the proof, but rather the fact that you can request it easily, and in a
> canonical way.
>
Yes, but you still need the final signature. Is it possible to use an EC
signature with DNSSEC? I thought it was an all-RSA system. If I'm wrong
about that, and all you need is 32 bytes, then my argument does not hold.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150720/7c3a721f/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:>
> In my previous post, I was suggesting to *not* include the proof in the
> request, because the payer can download it independently. Only the final
> signature is needed. What makes DNSSEC interesting is not the size of
> the proof, but rather the fact that you can request it easily, and in a
> canonical way.
>
Yes, but you still need the final signature. Is it possible to use an EC
signature with DNSSEC? I thought it was an all-RSA system. If I'm wrong
about that, and all you need is 32 bytes, then my argument does not hold.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150720/7c3a721f/attachment.html>;