Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20150122004416.93EFDE27748@quidecco.de>
References: <CAJHLa0N6+hpwNECpHUSiKuj4-BYohh=Wr1DP=67Ff8xVBsi8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54760A50.201@riseup.net> <20141127020947.A13D2E19A09@quidecco.de>
	<CAAS2fgRSxBmyDg5R7WgisB-XmhrpGVKHXQpchtL-Ow0xDQAziA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2JLUu9V4HGSLWr1Mg37qmTFVuihTQhJeJ4iyQPxrqsMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141208161514.6C492E1B59B@quidecco.de>
	<CANEZrP1Wh_98+47PmmHwSTDoSASw96R+Xnh5qWzROdmxPwO0Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150122004416.93EFDE27748@quidecco.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:20:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2H8P0nh6224UKbnZ7EXrNE6jwM_SZSj6UaMn1QqWumDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P
 network paper
Precedence: list

--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> I hear that. But I don't see why mainstream wallets and wallets
> designed for crypto research should not share a common core.
>

I think there was some misunderstanding. I was saying they *could and
should* share common cores, so we are in agreement without realising it :)
I also didn't mean to imply there was anything special about bitcoinj, just
that it's an example of a wallet engine that's already in use.


> BIP70 is interesting, indeed, although I still fail to understand why
> (according to the specs I saw) the PaymentRequest message is signed,
> but not the Payment message.
>

Because it's intended to be submitted via HTTPS. But what would you sign
the message with? Some arbitrary key bound to the transaction?

--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">I hear that. But I don&#39;t see why mainstream =
wallets and wallets<br>
designed for crypto research should not share a common core. <span class=3D=
""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think there was some misun=
derstanding. I was saying they <i>could and should</i>=C2=A0share common co=
res, so we are in agreement without realising it :) I also didn&#39;t mean =
to imply there was anything special about bitcoinj, just that it&#39;s an e=
xample of a wallet engine that&#39;s already in use.</div><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">BIP70 is interesting, indeed, although I sti=
ll fail to understand why<br>
(according to the specs I saw) the PaymentRequest message is signed,<br>
but not the Payment message.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because it=
&#39;s intended to be submitted via HTTPS. But what would you sign the mess=
age with? Some arbitrary key bound to the transaction?</div></div></div></d=
iv>

--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a--