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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Vtfos-0001XJ-82 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:47:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of zikula.org designates 209.85.212.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.181; envelope-from=drak@zikula.org; helo=mail-wi0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Vtfoq-0008DP-Uq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:47:26 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hq4so2380529wib.2 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:47:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=t80I+3YlBMYe/heHJSwpts5oFyoDg0TQ5AGB71a7S4E=; b=X5s3uPEgvnxiCuo9dvhs3aHX72ENGR9UWfjCwnlnZg+hVY+ES3EknvTgFYImtfiIhA YBv1Ymm6ijvV9d5pmIvgW9LNINV6/joI0zLiC4iEYTKvxu0mX9oFB2midzKKj2hWWetW Nhk2VLUIvBacloFDQFHhz/LGhIu0zcvsUeVFTsMjU9OXWdIEnN1SRcXMBCrFxyG64eFR nfBp3r51z/+aiv0PmwPXqvAIu7ToJeE2D2KIw+TGncl7y3snTe3B8PKeCaNgfLX6BIpe +CY6sGlc1/sQDQLoCYsNQk2Q62OwttXfVC3jr3OgygPSiqv/wH+Iv7EDgLbWzMwa2CAP TMmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmyswNnFcbOHcun3ZzhDXLo9TJ4KdLG7nWSVoYV3joUEZXGeWUZyN4LuRcke/JQ5vZMUo9M X-Received: by 10.194.206.5 with SMTP id lk5mr2126534wjc.46.1387468038660; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:47:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.93.105 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:46:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131219131706.GA21179@savin> References: <20131219131706.GA21179@savin> From: Drak Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:46:58 +0000 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b874c4294f96a04ede513e4 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1Vtfoq-0008DP-Uq Cc: unsystem@lists.dyne.org, Bitcoin Dev , Amir Taaki Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] DarkWallet Best Practices 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: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:47:26 -0000 --047d7b874c4294f96a04ede513e4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 19 December 2013 13:17, Peter Todd wrote: > ** Fees > > Wallets MUST give users the ability to set the fee per KB they are > willing to pay for their transactions. Wallets SHOULD allow users to > change that fee after the fact via transction replacement. Can you add a part about SHOULD/MUST warn users if the fee is unusually high to avoid sob-stories of people sending 20BTC fees with for the 0.002BTC sandwich. Sourcecode MUST be PGP signed on a regular basis. Releases MUST be > signed - in git this is accomplished by signing the release tag. > Individual commits SHOULD be signed, particularly if source-code used in > "SHOULD be cryptographically signed" I assume. > ** SSL/Certificate authorties > > While certificate authorities are notoriously bad at the job they are > supposed to be doing the CA system is still better than nothing - use it > where appropriate. For instance if you have a website advertising your > software, use https rather than http. > Once could make efforts to publish (maybe even as signed commits in the git repo etc the current valid certificate fingerprints and which CA signed it). This would go some way to exposing MITM either by CA or in workplaces where browsers are loaded with bogus CAs for the purpose of deep packet inspection. > ** Multi-factor spend authorization, AKA multisig wallets > > controlling funds, which is out of scope for this document> > > Assuming any individual device is uncompromised is risky; wallet > software SHOULD support some form of multi-factor protection of some or > all wallet funds. Note that this is a weak "should"; mainly we want to > According to RFC 2119 language, you might be better using the word RECOMMENDED or MAY over SHOULD here. Additionally, at the beginning of the spec I would put : "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ." Regards Drak --047d7b874c4294f96a04ede513e4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1= 9 December 2013 13:17, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrot= e:
** Fees

Wallets MUST give users the ability to set the fee per KB they are
willing to pay for their transactions. Wallets SHOULD allow users to
change that fee after the fact via transction replacement.

Can you add a part about SHOULD/MUST warn users if the fee= is unusually high to avoid sob-stories of people sending 20BTC fees with f= or the 0.002BTC sandwich.

Sourcecode MUST be PGP signed on a regular = basis. Releases MUST be
signed - in git this is accomplished by signing the release tag.
Individual commits SHOULD be signed, particularly if source-code used in

"SHOULD be cryptographically signed&= quot; I assume.
=C2=A0
** SSL/Certificate authorties

While certificate authorities are notoriously bad at the job they are
supposed to be doing the CA system is still better than nothing - use it where appropriate. For instance if you have a website advertising your
software, use https rather than http.

O= nce could make efforts to publish (maybe even as signed commits in the git = repo etc the current valid certificate fingerprints and which CA signed it)= . This would go some way to exposing=C2=A0
MITM either by CA or in workplaces where browsers are loaded with bogu= s CAs for the purpose
of deep packet inspection.
=C2=A0=
** Multi-factor spend authorization, AKA multisig wallets

<mainly discussed at the conference in terms of multiple individuals
controlling funds, which is out of scope for this document>

Assuming any individual device is uncompromised is risky; wallet
software SHOULD support some form of multi-factor protection of some or
all wallet funds. Note that this is a weak "should"; mainly we wa= nt to

According to RFC 2119 language, you might be better usin= g the word RECOMMENDED or MAY over SHOULD here.=C2=A0

Additionally, at the beginning of the spec I would put = :

"The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",= "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOU= LD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",= and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as describ= ed in=C2=A0RFC 2119."
=C2=A0
Regards

Drak=C2=A0
--047d7b874c4294f96a04ede513e4--