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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
|
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 <brianchoffman@gmail.com>) id 1XTXao-000335-9o
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:26 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.170; envelope-from=brianchoffman@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pd0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XTXai-0007k6-Ay
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:26 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id fp1so6440727pdb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.70.41.10 with SMTP id b10mr13200382pdl.72.1410792554541;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.55.167 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PX+e98ad4W+oLc=TL6t6EELv=q4JEG=0YKKa7Uz4+MQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140913135528.GC6333@muck>
<CAJHLa0MaE3Ki5Hs4Tu4dQNBW-EL-857N2kf-fVxYcXM6OO-84w@mail.gmail.com>
<20140914062826.GB21586@muck>
<201409150923.02817.thomas@thomaszander.se>
<CAJHLa0Owjs=6vhy_RSD+VSAZgBq2pSYv5HhCdA4-XCGgX=Z6dA@mail.gmail.com>
<3E354504-0203-4408-85A1-58A071E8546A@gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0PX+e98ad4W+oLc=TL6t6EELv=q4JEG=0YKKa7Uz4+MQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:49:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAADm4BARhLUrQSk1xy_Rk_rmXw=RkrX7y_+a57HmJbUKwpQLHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(brianchoffman[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1XTXai-0007k6-Ay
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Does anyone have anything at all signed
by Satoshi's PGP key?
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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:26 -0000
--047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it holds true for now.
I also never said the actual credential you receive from a government
agency is trustable. I completely agree that they are forgeable and not
necessarily reliable. That was not my point. I was referring to the vetting
process before issuance.
Just as you have behavioral characteristics online that contribute to
trusting an "identity" you also exhibit in person attributes, such as
physically being in a specific location at a certain time or blue eyes or
biometrics, that are valuable. You simply cannot capture those in an
online-only world. I don't see how you can deny the value there.
You are most certainly and undeniably the expert in the Bitcoin context
here so I will not even attempt to argue with you on that, but I just think
it's not realistic to ignore the value of an in-person network in other
contexts. You called it "geek wanking" with no qualifier "in the Bitcoin
context" so excuse me if I misunderstood your intent.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi.
>
> "value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable"... no it is
> quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain
> output, code. The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not
> bitcoin continues to function.
>
> The currency of bitcoin development is code, and electronic messages
> describing cryptographic theses. _That_ is the relevant fingerprint.
>
> Governmental id is second class, can be forged or simply present a
> different individual from that who is online. PGP WoT wanking does
> not solve that problem at all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but
> to dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle.
> >
> > The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because
> your risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go see
> if you can get any kind of governmental clearance of credential without
> in-person vetting. Ask them if they accept your behavioral signature.
> >
> > I know there is a lot of PGP hating these days but this comment doesn't
> necessarily apply to every situation.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
> wrote:
> >>> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust
> or sign
> >>> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without seeing
> that
> >>> person in real life, verifying their identity etc.
> >>
> >> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless and
> >> stupid geek wanking.
> >>
> >> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant. We know how
> >> Satoshi coded and wrote. It was the online Satoshi with which we
> >> interacted. The online Satoshi's PGP signature would be fine...
> >> assuming he established a pattern of use.
> >>
> >> As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key signed
> >> by the online entity known as "sipa." At a bitcoin conf I met a
> >> person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claimed to be sipa,
> >> but that could have been an actor. Absent a laborious and boring
> >> signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a supercomputing
> >> cluster of 500 gnomes.
> >>
> >> The point is, the "online entity known as Satoshi" is the relevant
> >> fingerprint. That is easily established without any in-person
> >> meetings.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Garzik
> >> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> >> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Want excitement?
> >> Manually upgrade your production database.
> >> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> >> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
> >>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-development@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/
>
--047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it h=
olds true for now.<div><br></div><div>I also never said the actual credenti=
al you receive from a government agency is trustable. I completely agree th=
at they are forgeable and not necessarily reliable. That was not my point. =
I was referring to the vetting process before issuance.</div><div><br></div=
><div>Just as you have behavioral characteristics online that contribute to=
trusting an "identity" you also exhibit in person attributes, su=
ch as physically being in a specific location at a certain time or blue eye=
s or biometrics, that are valuable. You simply cannot capture those in an o=
nline-only world. I don't see how you can deny the value there.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>You are most certainly and undeniably the expert in the B=
itcoin context here so I will not even attempt to argue with you on that, b=
ut I just think it's not realistic to ignore the value of an in-person =
network in other contexts. You called it "geek wanking" with no q=
ualifier "in the Bitcoin context" so excuse me if I misunderstood=
your intent.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Garzik =
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x">It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi.<br>
<br>
"value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable"...=C2=A0 n=
o it is<br>
quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain<br>
output, code.=C2=A0 The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not=
<br>
bitcoin continues to function.<br>
<br>
The currency of bitcoin development is code, and electronic messages<br>
describing cryptographic theses.=C2=A0 _That_ is the relevant fingerprint.<=
br>
<br>
Governmental id is second class, can be forged or simply present a<br>
different individual from that who is online.=C2=A0 PGP WoT wanking does<br=
>
not solve that problem at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Brian Hoffman <<a href=3D"mailto:brianc=
hoffman@gmail.com">brianchoffman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but=
to dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle.=
<br>
><br>
> The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because=
your risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go =
see if you can get any kind of governmental clearance of credential without=
in-person vetting. Ask them if they accept your behavioral signature.<br>
><br>
> I know there is a lot of PGP hating these days but this comment doesn&=
#39;t necessarily apply to every situation.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik <<a href=3D"mailto:jga=
rzik@bitpay.com">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander <<a href=3D"=
mailto:thomas@thomaszander.se">thomas@thomaszander.se</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should n=
ot trust or sign<br>
>>> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without =
seeing that<br>
>>> person in real life, verifying their identity etc.<br>
>><br>
>> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless an=
d<br>
>> stupid geek wanking.<br>
>><br>
>> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant.=C2=A0 We=
know how<br>
>> Satoshi coded and wrote.=C2=A0 It was the online Satoshi with whic=
h we<br>
>> interacted.=C2=A0 The online Satoshi's PGP signature would be =
fine...<br>
>> assuming he established a pattern of use.<br>
>><br>
>> As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key sign=
ed<br>
>> by the online entity known as "sipa."=C2=A0 At a bitcoin=
conf I met a<br>
>> person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claime=
d to be sipa,<br>
>> but that could have been an actor.=C2=A0 Absent a laborious and bo=
ring<br>
>> signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a s=
upercomputing<br>
>> cluster of 500 gnomes.<br>
>><br>
>> The point is, the "online entity known as Satoshi" is th=
e relevant<br>
>> fingerprint.=C2=A0 That is easily established without any in-perso=
n<br>
>> meetings.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Jeff Garzik<br>
>> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br>
>> BitPay, Inc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------<br>
>> Want excitement?<br>
>> Manually upgrade your production database.<br>
>> When you want reliability, choose Perforce<br>
>> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.<br>
>> <a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D1575081=
91&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclic=
k.net/gampad/clk?id=3D157508191&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
>> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitco=
in-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
>> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/b=
itcoin-development</a><br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jeff Garzik<br>
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br>
BitPay, Inc.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D"=
_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7bf0d38210babc05031bbdc5--
|
