Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and take you seriously.
Cheers, -Yancy Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociat...@gmail.com>: > Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and > key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric > cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a different > term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have > stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a few other > dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to not draw > confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the > sarcasm. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM em...@yancy.lol <em...@yancy.lol> wrote: >> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like >> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as >> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you >> were a bot spamming the list. >> >> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? How >> long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what point >> will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have lost the >> war to our new centralized overlord? >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation >> <loneroassociat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography >>> in that aspect: >>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs >>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. >>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive >>> feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an >>> improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific >>> thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and >>> call it a day. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation >>> <loneroassociat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC >>>> hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in >>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates >>>> an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the >>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the >>>> changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological >>>> implementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing >>>> to create preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm >>>> improvements, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly >>>> technologically complex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and >>>> expand upon. As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting >>>> point at least for draft status prior to working on technological >>>> implementation. >>>> >>>> Best regards, Andrew >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM em...@yancy.lol <em...@yancy.lol> wrote: >>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be >>>>> very good. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -Yancy >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev >>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> … >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
