Frank Flores [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-06-19 to 2015-06-22
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:39:37

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-21
📝 Original message:If you're going to go through the trouble of signing your public emails,
please publish your public key on a major key server or at least somewhere
where google can crawl it. Thank you.
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT
<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150621/10c76ddc/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:39:37

- reply

2023-06-07 17:39:37

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-22
📝 Original message:Whenever a public key is altered in any way it should be
resubmitted/republished, so yes, please do so.
DO NOT PUBLISH YOUR PRIVATE KEY. That is the data used to sign a document.
You only need to publish your PUBLIC KEY or otherwise share it with
recipients of your signed message so that others can verify it as properly
signed or not.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Venzen Khaosan <venzen at mail.bihthai.net>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Granted this is not the gnuPG support list, it would help me and most
> members, here, to know just a little more, following your gpg advice
> about publishing keys:
>
> Say, subsequent to publishing a key to a keyserver, I then sign that
> key (or someone else signs it)
>
> 1) would the key need to be published again?
>
> 2) does the key used to sign it need to be published in order to make
> signature verification possible?
>
> Venzen
>
>
> On 06/22/2015 09:06 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > gpg --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --send-key
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVh6/4AAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mlL0IAIFZdzyzawOjc43SODLYePo6
> NJU+DRKCQLiNhiED/keCFR/t51XarY4dvgG81wr1qskckRarW6s2ZEWU/2l4oaHa
> Ys+yO5ASbWOp9jbcBWIMFcAou+ULYx732wqEGTXOgSXljrSsuGa4DO+8vSW1UToc
> kY6BhFUa9rjEUQXt+gUqfrXiFlgRFHY4/nd1Tk47VEBipZgcQsJr4j6SYhlXHfbb
> CpixpFeIeVFfdHSNQiDMqPkF3xsTLQcqq2LvZpT8TXrA5vQ0wv/gZH49zIIy5QjR
> xjmSb1tZl0GZRTZ3CYCsoK4Zq4BdhqdU8XIhlwACC2WXHFDnqQrTXwH4nLeWcG0=
> =pYDp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT
<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/c25d6467/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:38:58

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:Has anyone from Mycelium weighed in on this? Is their doublespend attack
detection broken with this kind of irresponsible behavior?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:
> On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 9:18 am, Adrian Macneil wrote:
> > If full-RBF sees any significant adoption by miners, then it will
> actively
> > harm bitcoin adoption by reducing or removing the ability for online or
> POS
> > merchants to accept bitcoin payments at all.
>
> Retail POS merchants probably should not be accepting vanilla Bitcoin
> payments, as Bitcoin alone does not (and cannot) guarantee the
> irreversibility of a transaction until it has been buried several blocks
> deep in the chain. Retail merchants should be requiring a co-signature from
> a mutually trusted co-signer that vows never to sign a double-spend. The
> reason we don't yet see such technology permeating the ecosystem is
> because, to date, zero-conf transactions have been irreversible "enough,"
> but this has only been a happy accident; it was never promised, and it
> should not be relied upon.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
*MONEY IS OVER!*
IF YOU WANT IT
<http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/>
=====================================================
The causes of my servitude can be traced to the tyranny of money.
-Serj Tankian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/4829df69/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:38:58

- reply