On 09/15/2014 03:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless and
> stupid geek wanking.
>
> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant. We know how
> Satoshi coded and wrote. It was the online Satoshi with which we
> interacted. The onli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15 September 2014 17:10:14 BST, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>If the server could replace the public key, it could replace the
>signature in all the same places.
>
>Please, can this stuff move to another list? It's offtopic.
+1
My original post was
On Monday, 15 September 2014, at 5:10 pm, Thomas Zander wrote:
> So for instance I start including a bitcoin public key in my email signature.
> I don't sign the emails or anything like that, just to establish that
> everyone
> has my public key many times in their email archives.
> Then when I
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> On Monday, 15 September 2014, at 5:10 pm, Thomas Zander wrote:
>> So for instance I start including a bitcoin public key in my email signature.
>> I don't sign the emails or anything like that, just to establish that
>> everyone
>> has my pu
On Monday 15. September 2014 11.51.35 Matt Whitlock wrote:
> If you were merely attaching your public key to them, then the email server
> could have been systematically replacing your public key with some other
> public key,
The beauty of publicly archived mailinglists make it impossible to get
The reason it is in fact geek wanking is because pgp tried to solve a problem
that can't be solved.
It tried to provide distributed trust to a system of identity, while still
depending on the local governments (i.e. centralization) for the upstream ID.
Its a marriage that has no benefits.
What
september 2014
To: Jeff Garzik
Cc: Thomas Zander; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Does anyone have anything at all signed by
Satoshi's PGP key?
I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but to
dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling
WoT is a perfectly reasonable way to establish trust about the link between
an online identity and a real world identity.
In the case of a developer with an existing reputation for his online
identity, that link is just irrelevant.
On Sep 15, 2014 4:52 PM, "Brian Hoffman" wrote:
> In the context
In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it holds true for now.
I also never said the actual credential you receive from a government
agency is trustable. I completely agree that they are forgeable and not
necessarily reliable. That was not my point. I was referring to the vetting
pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Funny that you should describe WoT that way. According to some
psycho-analysts the act of making love to a partner is actually a
realization of our subconscious desire to make love to ourselves.
So, in this sense, WoT geeks are indeed masturbating, bu
It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi.
"value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable"... no it is
quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain
output, code. The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not
bitcoin continues to functio
I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but to
dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle.
The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because your
risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go see if you can
ge
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust or sign
> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without seeing that
> person in real life, verifying their identity etc.
Such guidelines are a perfect exa
On 15 September 2014 09:23, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sunday 14. September 2014 08.28.27 Peter Todd wrote:
> > Do we have any evidence Satoshi ever even had access to that key? Did he
> > ever use PGP at all for anything?
>
> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust
On Sunday 14. September 2014 08.28.27 Peter Todd wrote:
> Do we have any evidence Satoshi ever even had access to that key? Did he
> ever use PGP at all for anything?
Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust or sign
a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) k
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 10:03:20AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> That claim is horse manure :) He never signed private emails sent to
> me, nor the forum posts.
That's consistent with what everyone else is saying:
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/509614729879642113
> He -might- have signed
That claim is horse manure :) He never signed private emails sent to
me, nor the forum posts.
He -might- have signed the occasional thing related to releases, I'm not sure.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> So far I have zero evidence that the common claim that "Satoshi PGP
So far I have zero evidence that the common claim that "Satoshi PGP
signed everything" was true; I have no evidence he ever
cryptographically signed any communications at all.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0ce4f740fb700bb8a9ed859ac96ac9871567a20fca07f76a
signature.asc
Descriptio
18 matches
Mail list logo