📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/84f9c76b/attachment.html>;
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 12:02:41
in reply to nevent1q…hkym
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pPublished at
2023-06-07 12:02:41Event JSON
{
"id": "eda7f6beb3ad5f82359d671641e3606c308e23b4750c905816519e2530656888",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686132161,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5bb4d423408bf0b009521e7b4ef6cfba42eb5b63ea5422c4d57e282127cd740e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"078052243d5c9e7012f4f13a31c718237915e9404948a4ff184c1857e63dbffe",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-04-03\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:46:17 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should\n\u003e \u003e extend existing standards whenever possible.\n\u003e\n\u003e I wonder if it's possible to make sigs compatible with PGP/EC ?\n\u003e\n\nOr we could take a step back, further into \"don't reinvent the wheel\"\nterritory. Why not simply make use of PGP(/EC) to sign and verify messages?\nIt has many advantages, like an already existing web-of-trust and keyserver\ninfrastructure.\n\nI still feel like this is sign message stuff is dragging the kitchen sink\ninto Bitcoin. It's fine for logging into a website, what you use it for,\nbut anything that approaches signing email (such as S/MIME implementations\nand handling different character encodings) is going too far IMO.\n\nWladimir\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120403/84f9c76b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "49042c98abfd4069f34e3ab3edddc67d20ff43d6c69c31334ad94323b236120aafb6f52d4c9063b2ff9034537234423e4ead81be83c9353c80b000751e77be68"
}