📅 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>;
Peter Vessenes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ez…6r8pt
2023-06-07 10:02:45
in reply to nevent1q…gned
Author Public Key
npub1ezg54d03a7unwu0fckmlugxulukrg06x7jzx4engngxfg79sfcqsn6r8ptPublished at
2023-06-07 10:02:45Event JSON
{
"id": "372e6347c1dc404c1fb58edc63e7538238ffbcaaec1c6f31f90f631bd071758c",
"pubkey": "c8914ab5f1efb93771e9c5b7fe20dcff2c343f46f4846ae6689a0c9478b04e01",
"created_at": 1686132165,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5bb4d423408bf0b009521e7b4ef6cfba42eb5b63ea5422c4d57e282127cd740e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"eda7f6beb3ad5f82359d671641e3606c308e23b4750c905816519e2530656888",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03\n📝 Original message:I don't think it's minimally invasive to layer PGP's web of trust on top of\nBitcoin, in fact, the opposite.\n\n\u003eFrom a certain angle, bitcoin exists as a sort of answer / alternate\nsolution to the web of trust. Digital cash with an existing web of trust in\nplace was a working concept in the mid-1990s, courtesy of David Chaum, I\nbelieve.\n\nI totally agree on the kitchen sink concern; I would personally like to see\nsomething like a one-year required discussion period on all non-security\nchanges proposed to the blockchain protocol. We know almost nothing about\nhow bitcoin will be used over the next 20 years; I believe it's a mistake\nto bulk up the protocol too rapidly right now.\n\nThere's a famous phrase from the founder of Lotus about Lotus' engineering\nprocess: \"add lightness.\" The equivalent for protocol design might be \"add\nsimplicity.\" I'd like to see us adding simplicity for now, getting a core\nset of tests together for alternate implementations like libbitcoin, and\nthinking hard about the dangers of cruft over a 10+ year period when it\ncomes to a technology which will necessarily include a complete history of\nevery crufty decision embodied in transaction histories.\n\nPeter\n\n\nOn Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:46:17 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should\n\u003e\u003e \u003e extend existing standards whenever possible.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I wonder if it's possible to make sigs compatible with PGP/EC ?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Or we could take a step back, further into \"don't reinvent the wheel\"\n\u003e territory. Why not simply make use of PGP(/EC) to sign and verify messages?\n\u003e It has many advantages, like an already existing web-of-trust and keyserver\n\u003e infrastructure.\n\u003e\n\u003e I still feel like this is sign message stuff is dragging the kitchen sink\n\u003e into Bitcoin. It's fine for logging into a website, what you use it for,\n\u003e but anything that approaches signing email (such as S/MIME implementations\n\u003e and handling different character encodings) is going too far IMO.\n\u003e\n\u003e Wladimir\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to\n\u003e monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second\n\u003e resolution app monitoring today. Free.\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \n\nPeter J. Vessenes\nCEO, CoinLab\nM: 206.595.9839\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/9e40ceb3/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "80e07a5cf64c93d7f44b0dee214e400c3331cefeed77e6a755b758724a1b279066931a72a5eac0fee3f2e4b4ce35cfb19a7650445d00d1136ce06c43c9c2833d"
}