I have added quite a bit more details. I haven't made any UML diagrams just yet. I did add a basic non-technical infographic though, and more then likely making a technical UML for the cryptographic mechanisms will be on my to-do list. I have also updated the terminology and added a bit more content.
Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 2:44 PM em...@yancy.lol <em...@yancy.lol> wrote: > My mistake for thinking your text was generated text, and my humor was not > meant to be directed at you, so apologies if you took it personally. > > > PS: The AI overlord is no joke > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > On Saturday, March 13, 2021 18:11 CET, Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull > request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess > the sense of humor. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <em...@yancy.lol> wrote: > >> 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
