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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YEHga-0004tU-8U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:20:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YEHgZ-0006CX-3o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:20:36 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id em10so21582403wid.1 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:20:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.126.99 with SMTP id mx3mr5250399wib.66.1421932829110; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:20:29 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.9 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:20:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150122004416.93EFDE27748@quidecco.de> References: <54760A50.201@riseup.net> <20141127020947.A13D2E19A09@quidecco.de> <20141208161514.6C492E1B59B@quidecco.de> <20150122004416.93EFDE27748@quidecco.de> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:20:29 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ECu5DAIxO6DEgBkWe-wSgnvsbNw Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Isidor Zeuner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a 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: 1YEHgZ-0006CX-3o Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P network paper 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, 22 Jan 2015 13:20:36 -0000 --e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I hear that. But I don't see why mainstream wallets and wallets > designed for crypto research should not share a common core. > I think there was some misunderstanding. I was saying they *could and should* share common cores, so we are in agreement without realising it :) I also didn't mean to imply there was anything special about bitcoinj, just that it's an example of a wallet engine that's already in use. > BIP70 is interesting, indeed, although I still fail to understand why > (according to the specs I saw) the PaymentRequest message is signed, > but not the Payment message. > Because it's intended to be submitted via HTTPS. But what would you sign the message with? Some arbitrary key bound to the transaction? --e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I hear that. But I don't see why mainstream = wallets and wallets
designed for crypto research should not share a common core.

I think there was some misun= derstanding. I was saying they could and should=C2=A0share common co= res, so we are in agreement without realising it :) I also didn't mean = to imply there was anything special about bitcoinj, just that it's an e= xample of a wallet engine that's already in use.
=C2=A0
=
BIP70 is interesting, indeed, although I sti= ll fail to understand why
(according to the specs I saw) the PaymentRequest message is signed,
but not the Payment message.

Because it= 's intended to be submitted via HTTPS. But what would you sign the mess= age with? Some arbitrary key bound to the transaction?
--e89a8f8389d12c78f5050d3d894a--