Laszlo Hanyecz [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2014-04-02 to 2018-06-18
💬 Posted a total of 11 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development, bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-09 14:49:14

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-02-24
📝 Original message:
I wanted to try out a real trade using lightning network. I don't know of any pizza places near me that accept lightning bitcoin yet but a friend from London agreed to do it and he sub contracted out the pizza delivery to a local shop.
In short, I paid bitcoin using the lightning network and he arranged for pizza to be delivered to me. In this trade my friend is just a middle man that is taking the risk on accepting lightning payments, but it demonstrates the basic premise of how this works for everyday transactions. It could just as well be the pizza shop accepting the payment directly with their own lightning node.
I wanted two pizzas and to try to do it as close to atomically as possible. I didn't want to prepay and end up with no pizza. As far as I know we don't yet have pizza/bitcoin atomic swap software but we improvised and decided that I would need to provide the payment hash preimage to the delivery driver in order to claim my pizza. If I can't produce the preimage, proving that I paid, then the pizza would not be handed over and it would be destroyed. This works because I can't get the preimage without paying the invoice. I agreed to open a channel and fund it with a sufficient amount for what we estimated the cost would end up being. After we agreed to these terms my friend was able to verify that I funded a channel on the blockchain, which shows that I at least have the money (bitcoin). He is taking on some entrepreneurial risk and prepaying his sub contractor to prepare and deliver the pizza to me, but at this point I have not risked my bitcoins, they're just committed to a channel. I was given a bolt11 invoice which I decoded with the c-lightning cli to verify everything was as agreed:
$ ./lightning-cli decodepay lnbc6490u1pdfrjhcpp5jyxuuskqw53apgqvtxa7emcrz5vs0qr2sxjayxv7jj70jznnl94sdp5x9vycgzrdpjk2umeypgxj7n6vykzqvfqg3jkcatcv5s9q6t60fssxqyzx2qcqpgaue37x27yp3pn4cr6wuprvwedncz4kavqh83cp3l0vwfrprj0xj8cedkfmjdzea0xpp0jazfcyy77cq37ej6d3xvmujmgu56pe56ktcqa3vcys
{ "currency" : "bc", "timestamp" : 1519504120, "created_at" : 1519504120, "expiry" : 72000, "payee" : "0397b318c5e0d09b16e6229ec50744c8a7a8452b2d7c6d9855c826ff14b8fa8b27", "msatoshi" : 649000000, "description" : "1XL Cheesy Pizza, 1 Deluxe Pizza", "min_final_cltv_expiry" : 8, "payment_hash" : "910dce42c07523d0a00c59bbecef03151907806a81a5d2199e94bcf90a73f96b", "signature" : "3045022100ef331f195e206219d703d3b811b1d96cf02adbac05cf1c063f7b1c91847279a402207c65b64ee4d167af3042f97449c109ef6011f665a6c4ccdf25b4729a0e69ab2f" }
When the pizza delivery arrived, I was asked "What is the preimage?" by the driver. At this point I paid the invoice and instantly received the preimage in return.
$ ./lightning-cli pay lnbc6490u1pdfrjhcpp5jyxuuskqw53apgqvtxa7emcrz5vs0qr2sxjayxv7jj70jznnl94sdp5x9vycgzrdpjk2umeypgxj7n6vykzqvfqg3jkcatcv5s9q6t60fssxqyzx2qcqpgaue37x27yp3pn4cr6wuprvwedncz4kavqh83cp3l0vwfrprj0xj8cedkfmjdzea0xpp0jazfcyy77cq37ej6d3xvmujmgu56pe56ktcqa3vcys
{ "preimage" : "7241e3f185148625894b8887ad459babd26540fc12124c3a7a96c937d89da8c1", "tries" : 1 }
In the interest of keeping it simple we agreed that the preimage would just be the first and last 4 characters of the hex string. So my answer was 7241-a8c1. I wrote this on a notepad and presented it to the driver who compared it to his own notepad, at which point I was given the pizza. It's probably not a good practice to share the preimage. The delivery driver didn't have the full string, only enough to verify that I had it.
How do you get the preimage for your invoice? In c-lightning you can do it like this:
$ ./lightning-cli invoice 12345 label description
{ "payment_hash" : "e04dfbd4adc634779b560c8e7072f883d5f17a3e32a33603bfc90a8682873d44", "expiry_time" : 1519523498, "expires_at" : 1519523498, "bolt11" : "lnbc123450p1pdfyzy6pp5upxlh49dcc680x6kpj88quhcs02lz737x23nvqaley9gdq5884zqdqjv3jhxcmjd9c8g6t0dccqpg802ys4s4z3rpm6d8zvdgq397wewh5kaz527hnglz9xsmjxfjrhe3mxq9pp7pqm0pwcwm748tav4am97gqrvnzxnlw5uxxawgw4vcywgphj26nf" }
$ sqlite3 ~/.lightning/lightningd.sqlite3 "SELECT quote(payment_key) FROM invoices ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1"
X'D3BE7E68D8B38B15A5194AEA131A21429A1987085C95A0631273273546FF5ED8'
Then you can verify that it's indeed the correct preimage by hashing it again and comparing it to the payment_hash in the invoice above:
$ echo "D3BE7E68D8B38B15A5194AEA131A21429A1987085C95A0631273273546FF5ED8" | xxd -r -p | sha256sum
e04dfbd4adc634779b560c8e7072f883d5f17a3e32a33603bfc90a8682873d44 -
Note that you should not share the preimage with anyone.
So is there any point to doing this instead of an on chain transaction? For what I described here, probably not. The goal was just to play around with c-lightning and do something more than shuffling a few satoshi back and forth. Maybe eventually pizza shops will have their own lightning nodes and I can open channels to them directly.
Some pics of my family enjoying the pizza here: http://eclipse.heliacal.net/~solar/bitcoin/lightning-pizza/
-Laszlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180225/313737f3/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 20:13:21

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-06-18
📝 Original message:On 2018-06-18 18:34, Артём Литвинович via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Suppose a malicious actor were to acquire a majority of hash power, and
> proceed to use that hash power to produce valid, but empty blocks.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Empty-Block-Fallacy

2023-06-07 19:35:37

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15
📝 Original message:Sounds legit.
On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
>
> The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
>
> They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
>
> If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
>
> Satoshi Nakamoto
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

2023-06-07 17:47:22

- reply

2023-06-07 17:39:28

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-21
📝 Original message:I got ~500 uncaught bounce notifications, so it seems like something broke.
On Jun 21, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> I too got this message and had to re-enable my membership on the list. There's no reason why messages sent by the list to my address would be bouncing.
>
>
> On Sunday, 21 June 2015, at 9:06 am, Braun Brelin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I got a message saying that my membership in the list was disabled due to
>> excessive bounces. As far as I can remember, I've only ever sent out one
>> e-mail on the list (not including this one) and that was a few weeks ago.
>> Has anyone else seen this problem? Could this be related in some way to
>> the issues regarding source forge and the mail list hosting issue?
>>
>> Braun Brelin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 17:25:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-08-08
📝 Original message:Mutual CHAP could work. This is commonly done in PPP and iSCSI. The idea is simply that both sides authenticate. The server expects the client to provide a password, and the client expects the server to provide a (different) password. If you masquerade as the server, you won't be able to authenticate because every client has a different password they expect from the server, so they won't do work for you. MITM on the server can capture the exchange but CHAP protects against replay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge-Handshake_Authentication_Protocol
-Laszlo
On Aug 8, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> gmaxwell noted on IRC that enabling TLS could be functionally, if not
> literally, a DoS on the pool servers. Hence the thought towards a
> more lightweight method that simply prevents client payout redirection
> + server impersonation.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>>> Certificate validation isn't needed unless the attacker can do a direct
>>> MITM
>>> at connection time, which is a lot harder to maintain than injecting a
>>> client.reconnect.
>>
>>
>> Surely the TCP connection will be reset once the route reconfiguration is
>> completed, either by the MITM server or by the client TCP stack when it
>> discovers the server doesn't know about the connection anymore?
>>
>> TLS without cert validation defeats the point, you can still be connected to
>> a MITM at any point by anyone who can simply interrupt or corrupt the
>> stream, forcing a reconnect.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
>> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
>> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
>> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 17:21:22

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-16
📝 Original message:It looks like it might be firewalled, probably just need to fix the ACL in EC2.
-Laszlo
On May 16, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de> wrote:
> Apparently British Telecom also cannot speak to Peter Todd's server.
>
> That another very large ISP in Europe.
>
>
> On 05/15/2014 01:50 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>> I'm bringing this issue up again. The current Bitcoin DNS seed
>> infrastructure is unstable. I assume this is because of we're using a
>> custom DNS implementation which is not 100% compatible. There have been
>> bugs in the past, like a case sensitive match for the domain name.
>>
>> Current state (seeds taken from bitcoinj):
>>
>> mainnet:
>>
>> seed.bitcoin.sipa.be OK
>> dnsseed.bluematt.me OK
>> dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org SERVFAIL, tried multiple ISPs
>> seed.bitcoinstats.com OK
>>
>> testnet:
>>
>> testnet-seed.bitcoin.petertodd.org SERVFAIL, just from Telefonica
>> testnet-seed.bluematt.me OK (but only returns one node)
>>
>> Note: Telefonica is one of Europe's largest ISPs.
>>
>> I would try to improve DNS myself, but I'm not capable of writing C. My
>> "fix" would be to reimplement everything in Java -- I doubt you guys
>> would be happy with that.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
>> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 17:18:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-16
📝 Original message:I think a warning like this is inappropriate.
There are many reasons to use an out of date operating system and high level applications like wallets need not concern themselves with the rest of the system. Maybe the wallet can scan your browser cache and tell you to stop visiting somesite.com too?
It just sounds like some kind of behavior modification that's being discussed here.. not-so-subtly suggesting that users shell out money for a newer version of the operating system, just to use their bitcoin wallets in a 'blessed' configuration. This actually sounds very similar to what happens with Apple iPhones.. they somehow manage to 'invalidate' the charging cables and accessories with every major software version. One day an accessory is working fine, then after the update users get a behavior modification nag every time they use it, urging them to buy a new one. Along these same lines, might as well put a warning about the registry keys needing to be cleaned, and maybe a 'shock the money' banner[1].
You guys all know how it works with financial software - there are many organizations using decades old software (and hardware) because they know its shortcomings, they've taken care of them in a way that works them, and they don't want to start all over just for the sake of having the newest version.
-Laszlo
[1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/adobe/obnoxious-banner-ads-that-everyone-remembers
On Apr 16, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Roy Badami <roy at gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:20:41PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think we should get to the bottom of this. Should we assume that xp is
>>> not secure enough?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Do we need a similar warning for OS X 10.6? The EOL of that one is
> *far* less well known than XP (because of Apple's failure to
> communicate product lifecycles).
>
> roy
>
>
>>
>>> What is this warning?
>>
>> Windows XP is no longer maintained. Don't use such a system for
>> protecting your money.
>>
>>> Who is issuing this warning?
>>
>> Microsoft: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/end-support-help
>>
>> The suggestion here is to make Bitcoin Core detect when it's running
>> on Windows XP, and warn the user (they are likely unaware of the
>> risks).
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
>> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
>> applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
>> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
> applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 17:18:21

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09
📝 Original message:On Apr 9, 2014, at 8:12 PM, slush <slush at centrum.cz> wrote:
>
> These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?
>
Teredo is available by default on Microsoft systems and it's actually very common to see Teredo addresses as peers in torrents - this should work for bitcoin too, though I'm not sure if an app needs to set special flags to gain access to it.. there are probably some security settings around it. In the US, AT&T/CenturyLink provide IPv6 by way of 6RD for DSL customers, Comcast has native IPv6 on residential (but not business) cable modems, and of course those who want to can always set up with a tunnel broker like Hurricane Electric - they even let you use your own IPv6 addresses. IPv6 is great, but having an application running its own tunnels would not be a good way to leverage it.
Probably what's keeping a lot of them from being reachable is that most people just plug their CPE into a NAT router (without IPv6). Teredo can help here though.
Putting an IPv6 checkbox in the settings with a link to an explanation might help with education and result in smarter operators who can make their nodes reachable. A built in checker would be even better - something like a checklist showing red/green for different aspects of reachability (v4/teredo/v6).
-Laszlo

2023-06-07 17:17:02

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-02
📝 Original message:Maybe he has a fork on the real github.com and the link was a mistake.
http://news.nurse.com/article/20121203/NY02/112030026#.Uzw5UVy2uw8
I think it's possible that 'Kevin' is for real and maybe he doesn't realize he linked to a phishing site, if it was an accident. If this is the same person, then he's blind, and maybe that's why he wrote 'U R L' instead of the usual 'URL', by using speech to text or some other assistive tech. It might be that he tried to fork github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin and just provided the wrong link. But regardless, stay away from the one with two Bs in it.
Thanks,
Laszlo
On Apr 2, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/2014 11:45 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote:
>> Kevin,
>> the thing is you gave us a bad link... what is the correct URL of your project?
>>
>> 2014-04-02 16:30 GMT+01:00 Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com>:
>>> On 4/2/2014 11:13 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
>>>> Maybe this site serves up exploits selectively? I'm guessing most people are getting the 'domain for sale' but whoever is the target probably gets something special?
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/2/2014 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>>>> At first, this is a poor choice of URL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it really looks like a phishing attempt that no one should visit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've sat on this for some time after starting this. I have forked this
>>>>>>> from bitcoin core and am working on a secure tax "mode" for bitcoin. It
>>>>>>> is written in Autoit. I know I know, scripting language alert! I would
>>>>>>> like people to look at:
>>>>>>> http://www.githubb.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
>>>>>>> Look at it, and let's have an open dialog about it. I want to know the
>>>>>>> good, the bad, and the ugly!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>> As far as choice of U R L, it may be a poor choice but I did this
>>>>> because I wanted it connected with the core. As far as fishing it
>>>>> certainly is not that! This is a serious project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>> I tell you that this is a serious project for bitcoin. You are free to
>>> assume the worst. After all, I did say the good the bad and the ugly
>>> would come out of this. I happen to be a big believer in bitcoin and I
>>> feel this project holds water. If you disagree, that's fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> I understand now why someone thought I was fishing. That link should work just fine...I'm not sure what the problem is as I know I forked correctly. I guess I'll need to register a domain for it an get a page going and link from there. I just haven't gotten around to it but will do that. I'll get going! Just know that I would never set up fishing; that's not my style.
>
>
> --
> Kevin
>

2023-06-07 17:17:01

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-02
📝 Original message:www.githubb.com resolves to addresses announced by AS53665
Some basic info about AS53665 can be seen at http://bgp.he.net/AS53665
They probably have a dedi or VPS at Cogent. They didn't even create an IRR record for their AS or their only route.
Let's see what google has to say about malware from AS53665 (TL;DR - it's a malware site)
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:53665
-Laszlo
On Apr 2, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/2014 11:13 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
>> Maybe this site serves up exploits selectively? I'm guessing most people are getting the 'domain for sale' but whoever is the target probably gets something special?
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/2/2014 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>> At first, this is a poor choice of URL.
>>>>
>>>> But it really looks like a phishing attempt that no one should visit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've sat on this for some time after starting this. I have forked this
>>>>> from bitcoin core and am working on a secure tax "mode" for bitcoin. It
>>>>> is written in Autoit. I know I know, scripting language alert! I would
>>>>> like people to look at:
>>>>> http://www.githubb.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
>>>>> Look at it, and let's have an open dialog about it. I want to know the
>>>>> good, the bad, and the ugly!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>
>>> As far as choice of U R L, it may be a poor choice but I did this
>>> because I wanted it connected with the core. As far as fishing it
>>> certainly is not that! This is a serious project.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> I tell you that this is a serious project for bitcoin. You are free to assume the worst. After all, I did say the good the bad and the ugly would come out of this. I happen to be a big believer in bitcoin and I feel this project holds water. If you disagree, that's fine.
>
>
> --
> Kevin
>

2023-06-07 17:17:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-02
📝 Original message:Maybe this site serves up exploits selectively? I'm guessing most people are getting the 'domain for sale' but whoever is the target probably gets something special?
On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/2014 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> At first, this is a poor choice of URL.
>>
>> But it really looks like a phishing attempt that no one should visit.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Kevin <kevinsisco61784 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've sat on this for some time after starting this. I have forked this
>>> from bitcoin core and am working on a secure tax "mode" for bitcoin. It
>>> is written in Autoit. I know I know, scripting language alert! I would
>>> like people to look at:
>>> http://www.githubb.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
>>> Look at it, and let's have an open dialog about it. I want to know the
>>> good, the bad, and the ugly!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
> As far as choice of U R L, it may be a poor choice but I did this
> because I wanted it connected with the core. As far as fishing it
> certainly is not that! This is a serious project.
>
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development