From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WnsUF-0001m1-5I for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:38:27 +0000 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WnsTz-0001E6-8Q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:38:27 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id lj1so4362229pab.0 for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lhCduZb0fYDpEqB+9WDajHOKr9Ar78yZHPgXvnP0WYQ=; b=eAc6SJLhCoC2+TB1iuDZcwFyRY4JCUEItIu7KFrv9zeTG6GmP2fbItArWZCbmeVSeB wzPnF78k/ZsB6kRrPTN8D5XBO5QPGiU8d1Tp8Zjef+wZMJKcrz7/WYmX/KqgQqK4sseY JOGvGxPFCghP807HQo10BmfCP7ibq6KBVPWdCtjIFU0RfiXjVofnLz6eypwmqqSMNjrz 3i6zRNxhUB2qYGRhwyoCfC/+rSNxT8geCVLobAcLkmE/WYfm9UFeyIjcB8PCOOx9mwBX Toz7fhG53E91KelghtF/rMnt8Hd85NFFzfLFUBFt6qTKcFnfcfgsioR2qDqxQ0b4ortR h8uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1onqj0iqi+j2P9lsowrRV1UIwsYlZdEMc5o9vKaqoqhHrgCFj1qoEUQyvsPGMNpvmXl1y X-Received: by 10.68.204.162 with SMTP id kz2mr7488370pbc.13.1400863085167; Fri, 23 May 2014 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.127.213] (50-0-36-109.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net. [50.0.36.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rw4sm16292251pab.47.2014.05.23.09.38.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 23 May 2014 09:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <537F796A.2040009@monetize.io> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:38:02 -0700 From: Mark Friedenbach Organization: Monetize.io Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <7B48B9D4-5FB0-42CA-A462-C20D3F345A9A@beams.io> <537D0CE1.3000608@monetize.io> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED Exceeded time limit / deadline X-Headers-End: 1WnsTz-0001E6-8Q Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] PSA: Please sign your git commits 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, 23 May 2014 16:38:27 -0000 I know the likelihood of this happening is slim, but if these are the desired features we should consider switching to monotone (monotone.ca) which has a much more flexible DAG structure and workflow built around programmable multi-sig signing of commits. We could still maintain the github account as a two-way repository interface, but acceptance of a pull request would require some threshold signature sign-off in monotone. I would seriously suggest anybody on this list exploring monotone if you haven't already, at least for your personal projects if it is too late to make that choice for bitcoin. Besides the benefits of using it, we should be supporting build infrastructure that enables less trusted, less centralized development. http://www.monotone.ca/ Mark On 05/23/2014 12:12 AM, Wladimir wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Related: Current multi-sig wallet technology being rolled out now, >> with 2FA and other fancy doodads, is now arguably more secure than my >> PGP keyring. My PGP keyring is, to draw an analogy, a non-multisig >> wallet (set of keys), with all the associated theft/data >> destruction/backup risks. >> >> The more improvements I see in bitcoin wallets, the more antiquated my >> PGP keyring appears. Zero concept of multisig. The PGP keyring >> compromise process is rarely exercised. 2FA is lacking. At least >> offline signing works well. Mostly. > > Would be incredible to have multisig for git commits as well. I don't > think git supports multiple signers for one commit at this point - > amending the signature replaces the last one - but it would allow for > some interesting multi-factor designs in which the damage when a dev's > computer is compromised would be reduced. > > Sounds like a lot of work to get a good workflow there, though. > > My mail about single-signing commits was already longer than I > expected when I started writing there. Even though the process is > really simple. > > Though if anyone's interest is piqued by this, please pick it up. > > Wladimir >