Peter Vessenes [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03 📝 Original message:I don't think it's ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/9e40ceb3/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/9e40ceb3/attachment.html>;