From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) id 1V4YjL-0006aR-04 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:54:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V4YjK-0008AH-5h for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:54:26 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k18so946687oag.40 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.56.232 with SMTP id d8mr7336260obq.96.1375286060803; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7B0891A4-7163-43AE-85EC-8BA7ADC28A2A@grabhive.com> <51F886F6.1090108@gmail.com> <20130731133104.GW29404@leitl.org> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:54:20 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: liwmZtMhWXz4xqjcI8IP7BOj1Xs Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Eugen Leitl Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d 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: 1V4YjK-0008AH-5h Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [bitcoin-list] BitMail - p2p Email 0.1. beta 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, 31 Jul 2013 15:54:27 -0000 --001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sorry, I just noticed that this thread was CCd to the announce list not the development list (why is it open access?) It's offtopic anyway. Let's continue this discussion in private if anyone wants to. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > The reason why TPM functionality was so much hated upon is because >> it was pushed by a software/hardware monopoly, not just for DRM but >> for locking down the system in general. >> > > Regardless of what some people might have imagined or extrapolated at the > time, the actual published specifications and technologies were nothing > like that. There has never been a TC/TPM mode that would have generally > locked systems down or even been useful for DRM (that'd have required a > trusted hardware path which was never specced nor implemented). > > Locking a system down against tampering or for DRM does not require > flexible open specifications with multiple competing implementations. It > requires you to do an Xbox 360. > --001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry, I just noticed that this thread was CCd to the anno= unce list not the development list (why is it open access?)

<= div>It's offtopic anyway. Let's continue this discussion in private= if anyone wants to.


On Wed,= Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:<= br>

=
The reason why TPM functio= nality was so much hated upon is because
it was pushed by a software/hardware monopoly, not just for DRM but
for locking down the system in general.

Regardless of what some people might have imagined or extrapolated a= t the time, the actual published specifications and technologies were nothi= ng like that. There has never been a TC/TPM mode that would have generally = locked systems down or even been useful for DRM (that'd have required a= trusted hardware path which was never specced nor implemented).=C2=A0

Locking a system down against tampering or for DRM does= not require flexible open specifications with multiple competing implement= ations. It requires you to do an Xbox 360.

--001a11c2c91c1e6e5d04e2d0bd0d--