1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1V4YjL-0006aR-04
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:54:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V4YjK-0008AH-5h
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:54:26 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k18so946687oag.40
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.56.232 with SMTP id d8mr7336260obq.96.1375286060803;
Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3J1+ATYSRcAcJgGtwcJE+XXKjFrdkP-bYQS7VbxKfV-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEvNM8=yQn8sE4Lrf5+xedfm4RomBkBVhVWOdFFXxPEk7wZYDw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgS=5ju1BFFDkjoRW65qdtojm3rYBHZcSMtUmHhyaTxMhA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2+jOTHsEv+qXpqLKJS3UATB_so2ZwQdL+AyJTd2zti4A@mail.gmail.com>
<7B0891A4-7163-43AE-85EC-8BA7ADC28A2A@grabhive.com>
<CANEZrP0OYzz8p6zT_y7JGZyofZ=wTZ=6umCLu0AJy8KH6E0R5A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD2Ti29=Lzcun+0Jz7zn2Dt9G2a06f-0V8KEBUMHJTGxhHQV0A@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3JVtzBU9mcWvYNuespTi81kaoVUfKAx6vKBWd-hrCqCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD2Ti29zbac5YrW6+oMvb=8t7b1A31XckyC-mH7_qixLCRnFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
<51F886F6.1090108@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3E1g7btsjWsjD6twU+3pmGG-2Cfw_kExUGVb9JiYY4iQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20130731133104.GW29404@leitl.org>
<CANEZrP3J1+ATYSRcAcJgGtwcJE+XXKjFrdkP-bYQS7VbxKfV-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:54:20 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: liwmZtMhWXz4xqjcI8IP7BOj1Xs
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2uexbNM9xwNU1RSSgnRSGvUO69tVz0yL8Z5PXLG0HbSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d
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: 1V4YjK-0008AH-5h
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [bitcoin-list] BitMail - p2p Email 0.1.
beta
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:54:27 -0000
--001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sorry, I just noticed that this thread was CCd to the announce list not the
development list (why is it open access?)
It's offtopic anyway. Let's continue this discussion in private if anyone
wants to.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>
> The reason why TPM functionality was so much hated upon is because
>> it was pushed by a software/hardware monopoly, not just for DRM but
>> for locking down the system in general.
>>
>
> Regardless of what some people might have imagined or extrapolated at the
> time, the actual published specifications and technologies were nothing
> like that. There has never been a TC/TPM mode that would have generally
> locked systems down or even been useful for DRM (that'd have required a
> trusted hardware path which was never specced nor implemented).
>
> Locking a system down against tampering or for DRM does not require
> flexible open specifications with multiple competing implementations. It
> requires you to do an Xbox 360.
>
--001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Sorry, I just noticed that this thread was CCd to the anno=
unce list not the development list (why is it open access?)<div><br></div><=
div>It's offtopic anyway. Let's continue this discussion in private=
if anyone wants to.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed,=
Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt=
o:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<=
br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div class=3D"im"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The reason why TPM functio=
nality was so much hated upon is because<br>
it was pushed by a software/hardware monopoly, not just for DRM but<br>
for locking down the system in general.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></di=
v><div>Regardless of what some people might have imagined or extrapolated a=
t the time, the actual published specifications and technologies were nothi=
ng like that. There has never been a TC/TPM mode that would have generally =
locked systems down or even been useful for DRM (that'd have required a=
trusted hardware path which was never specced nor implemented).=C2=A0</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>Locking a system down against tampering or for DRM does=
not require flexible open specifications with multiple competing implement=
ations. It requires you to do an Xbox 360.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d--
|
