Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WQxi9-0003Vu-2m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:34:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.48; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WQxi8-0003Pd-0L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:34:05 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m1so2344058oag.7 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:33:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr6153384obp.70.1395401638682; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140320121221.GA25052@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140321105906.GA1725@netbook.cypherspace.org> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:33:57 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: N3Vs8DukiqCvh9rFuKU5ESPNuJ0 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538848fe279604f51c42cf X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WQxi8-0003Pd-0L Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:34:05 -0000 --089e01538848fe279604f51c42cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in the past, has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the Certicom ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still using RSA. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Adam Back wrote: > >> Maybe its time to explore raw ECDSA signed message based certs. >> > > If you want to create and run a new CA, by all means. But I bet you don't. > So we're stuck with the current system for now. > > >> btw I dont think its quite 4kB. eg bitpay's looks to be about 1.5kB in >> der >> format. And they contain a 2048-bit RSA server key, and 2048-bit RSA >> signatures (256byte each right there = 512bytes). And even 2048 is weaker >> than 256-bit ECDSA. > > > But you have to chain up to the root. > > The only reason more certs aren't ECC is backwards compatibility. Some old > browsers don't know how to handle them. It wasn't so long ago that Fedora > and Android were deleting ECC code from upstream libraries before shipping > them, either for patent reasons for disk space saving measures. > > But it's possible to get ECC certs if you want. For example, Entrust is > starting to sell them: > > http://www.entrust.net/ecc-certs/index.htm > > But their intermediate cert is still RSA. My understanding is that ECC > roots for many CA's have been submitted and are now included, but of course > "give up compatibility with lots of users" vs "save a bit of cpu time and a > handful of bytes" is no real competition so it will be a long time until > most websites are using ECC certs. > > Regardless, it's all irrelevant. Who knows when we might want to add > another feature that uses some bytes into PaymentRequests. Stuffing them > into a QR code will never make much sense IMO - it's far more sensible to > just use Bluetooth where the data size constraints are so much easier. > --089e01538848fe279604f51c42cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in= the past, has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the = Certicom ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still= using RSA.


On Fri, Mar 2= 1, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Adam Back &= lt;adam@cypherspa= ce.org> wrote:
Maybe its time to explore raw ECDSA signed message based c= erts.

If you want to create and run a new = CA, by all means. But I bet you don't. So we're stuck with the curr= ent system for now.
=C2=A0
btw I dont think its quite 4kB. =C2=A0eg bitpay's looks to be about 1.5= kB in der
format. =C2=A0And they contain a 2048-bit RSA server key, and 2048-bit RSA<= br> signatures (256byte each right there =3D 512bytes). =C2=A0And even 2048 is = weaker
than 256-bit ECDSA.

But you have to c= hain up to the root.

The only reason more certs ar= en't ECC is backwards compatibility. Some old browsers don't know h= ow to handle them. It wasn't so long ago that Fedora and Android were d= eleting ECC code from upstream libraries before shipping them, either for p= atent reasons for disk space saving measures.

But it's possible to get ECC certs if you want. For= example, Entrust is starting to sell them:


But their intermediate cert is still RSA. My unde= rstanding is that ECC roots for many CA's have been submitted and are n= ow included, but of course "give up compatibility with lots of users&q= uot; vs "save a bit of cpu time and a handful of bytes" is no rea= l competition so it will be a long time until most websites are using ECC c= erts.

Regardless, it's all irrelevant. Who knows when we = might want to add another feature that uses some bytes into PaymentRequests= . Stuffing them into a QR code will never make much sense IMO - it's fa= r more sensible to just use Bluetooth where the data size constraints are s= o much easier.

--089e01538848fe279604f51c42cf--