On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Justin Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> Hi Peter,
>Certainly AML/KYC compliance is one of the use cases that BIP 75 and our
> certificates can support. As a quick summary,
>
> There are individuals and en
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 01:28:48AM +0300, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> > All practical single-use seals will be associated with some kind of
> > condition,
> > such as a pubkey, or deterministic expression, that needs to be satisfied
> > for
> > the seal to be closed.
>
>
> I think it would be useful to
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:26:22PM +, Police Terror via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Bitcoin could embed a lisp interpreter such as Scheme, reverse engineer
> the current protocol into lisp (inside C++), run this alternative engine
> alongside the current one as an option for some years (only for fine
On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips
repository,
> and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin
developers
> to willingly participate in AML/K
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips
> repository,
> > and boycott wallets that implement it. I
On 06/22/2016 04:25 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Only large merchants are able to maintain such an infrastructure; (even
> Coinbase recently failed at it, they forgot to update their
> certificate). For end users that is completely unpractical.
>
>
> Payment protocol
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2016 12:56, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips
>
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication
> > platform isn't a good one and do
On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" wrote:
> Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control;
the
> question now is what editorial policies should we exert?
No, I do not. I am saying that some degree of editorial control will
inevitably exist, simply because there is some
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:16:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2016 14:10, "Peter Todd" wrote:
>
> > Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control;
> the
> > question now is what editorial policies should we exert?
>
> No, I do not. I am saying that some deg
>
> The point I'm making is simply that to be useful, when you close a seal you
> have to be able to close it over some data, in particular, another seal.
> That's
> the key thing that makes the idea a useful construct for smart contacts,
> value
> transfer/currency systems, etc.
>
OK, your second
AML/KYC is a *side-effect *of a some very important features of BIP0075.
Features that have nothing to do with public names for wallet seeds,
and moniker *consistency *should be scrapped.
BIP 75 formalises what someone could do today with a bunch of PGP emails
back and forth.
I create a public k
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips
> repository,
> and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin
> developers
> to willingly partic
On 6/23/2016 1:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> I don’t know if you are opposed to organizations that have AML requirements
>> from using the bitcoin blockchain, but if you aren’t, why wouldn’t you
>> prefer an open source, open standards based solution to exclusionary,
>> proprietar
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, s7r via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Any kind of built-in AML/KYC tools in Bitcoin is bad, and might draw
> expectations from _all_ users from authorities. Companies or individuals
> who want and/or need AML/KYC can find ways
In England under RIPA 2000 legislation, it's irrelevant whether you have
the data or not. If the authorities compel you to hand over that
information, and it is within your means to obtain it then you are
obliged to do so under threat of criminal offense.
So any mechanism whereby data could be col
Hi there,
For users who don’t wish a service provider to be able to see their
information, even ephemerally, and they would like to exchange information
via BIP75, they can use a software wallet, such as a breadwallet or others,
and that data will only exist on their phone, and the phone of thei
Sometimes I think there's concerted resistance to making Bitcoin usable for
the average person. Clearly the primary purpose of BIP0075 is to enshrine
a DNSSEC protocol for giving wallet addresses memorable names.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists
> Clearly the primary purpose of BIP0075 is to enshrine a DNSSEC protocol
> for giving wallet addresses memorable names.
>
>
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't, I don't
think this is an accurate description at all. BIP75 is, at its most
simplest, nothing more than an e
19 matches
Mail list logo