đź“… Original date posted:2015-02-05
đź“ť Original message:> A BIP-70 signed payment request in the initial broadcast can resolve the
> integrity issues, but because of the public nature of the broadcast
> coupled with strong public identity, the privacy compromise is much
> worse. Now transactions are cryptographically tainted.
>
> This is also the problem with BIP-70 over the web. TLS and other
> security precautions aside, an interloper on the communication, desktop,
> datacenter, etc., can capture payment requests and strongly correlate
> transactions to identities in an automated manner. The payment request
> must be kept private between the parties, and that's hard to do.
What about using encryption with forward secrecy? Merchant would
generate signed request containing public ECDH part, buyer would send
back transaction encrypted with ECDH and his public ECDH part. If
receiving address/amount is meant to be private, use commit protocol
(see ZRTP/RedPhone) and short authentication phrase (which is hard to
spoof thanks to commit protocol - see RedPhone)?
MⒶrtin HⒶboⓋštiak [ARCHIVE] /
npub136…pj3wf
2023-06-07 15:29:46
in reply to nevent1q…94hx
Author Public Key
npub136r0c946pguuzps5eu3tv47jh5pyfxvmty9wt7prgj3krm2py8eqwpj3wfPublished at
2023-06-07 15:29:46Event JSON
{
"id": "68f44291f2538fb58e3555a9deff8ca6b2a94ea6bdfc3a6119477229e44b4aca",
"pubkey": "8e86fc16ba0a39c10614cf22b657d2bd0244999b590ae5f82344a361ed4121f2",
"created_at": 1686151786,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5faa01afc6e1169d2a086249776b02fde5bfa851fa5197990b9cbcbf92c53f4a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ab859771345aac0144ce6a863e64deb3c3bfd9f7b8f1b88a0bd2f05a445032fa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "đź“… Original date posted:2015-02-05\nđź“ť Original message:\u003e A BIP-70 signed payment request in the initial broadcast can resolve the\n\u003e integrity issues, but because of the public nature of the broadcast\n\u003e coupled with strong public identity, the privacy compromise is much\n\u003e worse. Now transactions are cryptographically tainted.\n\u003e\n\u003e This is also the problem with BIP-70 over the web. TLS and other\n\u003e security precautions aside, an interloper on the communication, desktop,\n\u003e datacenter, etc., can capture payment requests and strongly correlate\n\u003e transactions to identities in an automated manner. The payment request\n\u003e must be kept private between the parties, and that's hard to do.\n\nWhat about using encryption with forward secrecy? Merchant would\ngenerate signed request containing public ECDH part, buyer would send\nback transaction encrypted with ECDH and his public ECDH part. If\nreceiving address/amount is meant to be private, use commit protocol\n(see ZRTP/RedPhone) and short authentication phrase (which is hard to\nspoof thanks to commit protocol - see RedPhone)?",
"sig": "cb9453d21d7db40f7da23332e4b8d6e1be53ca51ceac76b2a5542472faada98a419761e4948b700149c9a68748a1b874c1ae790dbcb2bf0eb8001b30a1a47294"
}