From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UV1Gl-0007zq-C2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:06:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of theagricolas.org designates 199.119.226.154 as permitted sender) client-ip=199.119.226.154; envelope-from=craig@theagricolas.org; helo=mail.theagricolas.org; Received: from theagricolas.org ([199.119.226.154] helo=mail.theagricolas.org) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1UV1Gh-0006pX-TX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:06:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.theagricolas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304084FC8050; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:46:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at theagricolas.org Received: from mail.theagricolas.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kimble.theagricolas.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5T12a+nYJNBN; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (c-75-69-34-85.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [75.69.34.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: craig@theagricolas.org) by mail.theagricolas.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C4234FC805B; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:46:49 -0400 From: Craig B Agricola To: Melvin Carvalho Message-ID: <20130424144649.GB29213@theagricolas.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UV1Gh-0006pX-TX Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Web Payments , public-rww Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Sending Bitcoins using RSA keys 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: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:06:03 -0000 Maybe I'm missing something crucial, but what benefit does this dance give over the slightly more obvious mechanism of simply: 1) Alice generates a new address with her bitcoin client and sends the BTC to this new address 2) Alice exports the private key for that address (there is a well supported format for that) 3) Alice writes a nice email to Bob, including that exported private key 4) Alice encrypts the email with Bob's public key using GPG and sends it to him by email 5) Bob decrypts the email 6) Bob imports the private key into his wallet There's no need for sending a whole wallet; just the one key is needed. Every bit of infrastructure needed above already exists. And of course, the above has the same issue as your proposal; this is a way for two trusting parties to send BTC without using the Bitcoin network, but it's not a payment mechanism. They now share control of an address; whoever spends that BTC first wins, so until Bob uses the Bitcoin network to spend that BTC to another address that only he controls, it's still in joint custody. And if ensuring that he has control of the BTC is the last (implicit) step in the procedure above, as well as yours, then they might as well have simply used the Bitcoin network to do the transfer in the first place. Did I miss the point entirely? -Craig PS. Re-reading, I realize that the above might come off sounding snarky or dismissive; it's not intended that way. I'm wondering if I'm missing the big picture. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:18:38PM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > So there's a slight world divide in digital payments with bitcoin using > ECDSA and GPG, payswarm / webid etc using largely RSA > > Here's how to bring the two worlds together and enable bitcoins be sent > over webid or payswarm > > > Problem: Alice and Bob have RSA key pairs, but no public bitcoin > addresses. Alice wants to send 1 BTC to Bob. > > 1. Alice takes Bob's WebID and encrpyts it with her private key (to create > entropy) ... > > 2. Alice uses that message as the seed to produce btc address (as per > http://brainwallet.org ) with ECDSA key pair > > 3. Alice sends coins to this address > > 4. Alice and then encrypts the seed again with Bob's public key > > 5. Bob decrypts the seed using his private key > > 6. Bob can now use the seed to recreate the wallet and spend the coins > > Unless I've made an error, I believe this unites the web paradigm and > crypto currency paradigm into one potentially giant eco system ... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt > New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service > that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your > browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic > and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development