[ANNOUNCE] Bitmessage - P2P Messaging system based partially on Bitcoin

[casascius]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?  So in other words, one could encrypt a message for the owner of a Bitcoin address.

Seems to me the following should be possible for any Bitcoin address whose public key is known:

1. assume the known pubkey is Gx
2. pick a random integer y
3. compute Gxy
4. isolate the X-component of Gxy for use as the key for symmetric encryption e.g. AES256
5. pick a random IV and encrypt the message with the symmetric cipher
5. serialize Gy, the IV, and the AES256 ciphertext.

The recipient, knowing his private key x, recomputes Gxy because he knows Gy.  Basically it's using the Bitcoin public key in a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and then sending a message encrypted by the derived key.

[1714061778]

1714061778

[1714061778]

1714061778

[1714061778]

1714061778

[Atheros]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.

[minimalB]

For two days i am not able to connect to any nodes : /

@Atheros: do you have any 'broadcast message' address to listen to?

[Atheros]

For two days i am not able to connect to any nodes : /

@Atheros: do you have any 'broadcast message' address to listen to?

The older default bootstrap nodes have gone offline. If you are running from source, you can upgrade to the latest source code files, delete knownNodes.dat from your applicationdata/PyBitmessage folder, then it will work. Evidently I need a DNS-based method of listing bootstrap nodes like Bitcoin uses to avoid this problem. EDIT: I have patched Bitmessage to use DNS bootstrapping. If you upgrade to v0.1.6, it should connect.

No, I don't have any nodes sending out random broadcast messages. I bet after an API is added, someone will start making services like a daily news service to which people can subscribe.

[HostFat]

Can you add a update available notification on next version?

[HostFat]

- I can't open "settings"
- If I click the red dot at botton right Bitmessage stop responding to clicks.
- Why does it run 2 instances?

[Atheros]

- I can't open "settings"
- If I click the red dot at botton right Bitmessage stop responding to clicks.
- Why does it run 2 instances?

Sorry about that, I've recompiled the EXE and it works now.
http://bitmessage.org/download/windows/Bitmessage.exe
I'm not sure what you mean about it running two instances. Is that still happening?

Can you add a update available notification on next version?

When development slows down a little bit I'll have a default item on the 'Subscriptions' tab for just that purpose.

[HostFat]

Ok, it works now

Anyway, it always open 2 processes.

[Atheros]

Ok, it works now

Anyway, it always open 2 processes.

Excellent!

It does the exact same thing on my computer; I think it has to do with they way PyInstaller packages up the EXE. I've seen other programs do this too like Flash and Chrome.

[HostFat]

I tried to send a message from an identity to another one, but both are on the client. ( I did it with the old version v0.1.4 )
The message is still showing this: "Waiting on their public key. Will request it again soon."
I have the green dot.

[Atheros]

I tried to send a message from an identity to another one, but both are on the client. ( I did it with the old version v0.1.4 )
The message is still showing this: "Waiting on their public key. Will request it again soon."
I have the green dot.

Sending from one identity to the other on the same client does result in strange behavior. The client doesn't process its own public key requests, public keys, or messages. It would be non-trivial to get it to do this as the part of the program that does the PoWs isn't connected to the part of the program that processes incoming messages. I'm not sure how v0.1.4 managed it. I suppose that it can be done but I would rather work on the ECC upgrade first.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.

This is gonna be cool.

Now you could store those Bitmessage/Bitcoin keys in a namecoin 'alias' namespace http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Aliases and have the Bitmessenger client just send to a human-readable name from the namecoin blockchain ... voila ... end-to-end secure, autonomous look-up, authenticated, human-readable messaging system.

[kjlimo]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.

This is gonna be cool.

Now you could store those Bitmessage/Bitcoin keys in a namecoin 'alias' namespace http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Aliases and have the Bitmessenger client just send to a human-readable name from the namecoin blockchain ... voila ... end-to-end secure, autonomous look-up, authenticated, human-readable messaging system.

*mind explodes* - I assume this is awesome, but don't completely understand what will motivate me to start using it and get others to use it.  

I hope for there to be a spark that gets me using it soon!

[Atheros]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.

This is gonna be cool.

Now you could store those Bitmessage/Bitcoin keys in a namecoin 'alias' namespace http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Aliases and have the Bitmessenger client just send to a human-readable name from the namecoin blockchain ... voila ... end-to-end secure, autonomous look-up, authenticated, human-readable messaging system.

That is a good idea isn't it!

Unfortunately, I asked a 'hero member' (I forget who) on IRC about this possibility and why no one was doing it with Bitcoin addresses yet and he said that Namecoin is "more or less dead now. pretty much abandoned by its creators... it's been sort of spammed to death because they massively lowered the cost to get names, so there is effectively no anti-dos in it anymore."

Though that may be gone, the very notion that it could have and would have worked means that I personally believe that someone someday will come up with a way to link human-meaningful names to non-human-meaningful data (like Bitcoin and Bitmessage addresses). Then we will have solved Zooko's triangle!

[kjlimo]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.

This is gonna be cool.

Now you could store those Bitmessage/Bitcoin keys in a namecoin 'alias' namespace http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Aliases and have the Bitmessenger client just send to a human-readable name from the namecoin blockchain ... voila ... end-to-end secure, autonomous look-up, authenticated, human-readable messaging system.

That is a good idea isn't it!

Unfortunately, I asked a 'hero member' (I forget who) on IRC about this possibility and why no one was doing it with Bitcoin addresses yet and he said that Namecoin is "more or less dead now. pretty much abandoned by its creators... it's been sort of spammed to death because they massively lowered the cost to get names, so there is effectively no anti-dos in it anymore."

Though that may be gone, the very notion that it could have and would have worked means that I personally believe that someone someday will come up with a way to link human-meaningful names to non-human-meaningful data (like Bitcoin and Bitmessage addresses). Then we will have solved Zooko's triangle!

Sounds like time to buy some namecoins!

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?

Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format.

However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around.

This is gonna be cool.

Now you could store those Bitmessage/Bitcoin keys in a namecoin 'alias' namespace http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Aliases and have the Bitmessenger client just send to a human-readable name from the namecoin blockchain ... voila ... end-to-end secure, autonomous look-up, authenticated, human-readable messaging system.

That is a good idea isn't it!

Unfortunately, I asked a 'hero member' (I forget who) on IRC about this possibility and why no one was doing it with Bitcoin addresses yet and he said that Namecoin is "more or less dead now. pretty much abandoned by its creators... it's been sort of spammed to death because they massively lowered the cost to get names, so there is effectively no anti-dos in it anymore."

Not sure who you were talking to on IRC but there are only total of 70,000 names registered on namecoin blockchain, hardly "spammed to death" considering the size of the namespaces available, i.e. all dictionary, names, etc in all languages .... 70,000 is drop in the ocean. You are surely misinformed.

Namecoin blockchain is tiny compared with bitcoin at present and is lightweight to run on pc, or you can make calls to the namecoin enabled DNS servers out there if you trust them. Namecoin is still working but just waiting for more applications, this will be an excellent one.

[Atheros]

Not sure who you were talking to on IRC but there are only total of 70,000 names registered on namecoin blockchain, hardly "spammed to death" considering the size of the namespaces available, i.e. all dictionary, names, etc in all languages .... 70,000 is drop in the ocean. You are surely misinformed.

Namecoin blockchain is tiny compared with bitcoin at present and is lightweight to run on pc, or you can make calls to the namecoin enabled DNS servers out there if you trust them. Namecoin is still working but just waiting for more applications, this will be an excellent one.

I pulled this out of my IRC log:

[02:45:51] <gmaxwell> It's more or less dead now— pretty much abandoned by its creators... it's been sort of spammed to death because they massively lowered the cost to get names, so there is effectively no anti-dos in it anymore.
[02:46:03] <gmaxwell> Which is quite sad, because it's a useful idea.
[02:46:58] <gmaxwell> There are some fundimental challenges, e.g. it's not possible today to have a lite (not full blockchain) namecoin resolver which is secure.. though its fundimentally possible to create.
[02:49:03] <Atheros2> That's unfortunate. I was thinking about why it couldn't be (or hasn't been) used to alias Bitcoin addresses but I guess that is the reason.
[02:49:23] <gmaxwell> (it seems that all altchains get more or less technically abandoned... none of them even bother to backport critical security fixes from bitcoin)
[02:49:36] <Atheros2> hmm
[02:49:54] <gmaxwell> Atheros2: well it could be but you currently would need a copy of the whole namecoin chain, which is small compared to bitcoin but _huge_ compared to the actual amount of namecoin usage.
[02:50:25] <Atheros2> gmaxwell: I see.
[02:50:27] <gmaxwell> (nmc's database is about 1.1gb right now)
[02:50:39] <Atheros2> gmaxwell: Indeed, that's pretty big.
[02:51:09] <gmaxwell> it would be bigger but it seems it's too boring to even bother attacking right now.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Not sure who you were talking to on IRC but there are only total of 70,000 names registered on namecoin blockchain, hardly "spammed to death" considering the size of the namespaces available, i.e. all dictionary, names, etc in all languages .... 70,000 is drop in the ocean. You are surely misinformed.

Namecoin blockchain is tiny compared with bitcoin at present and is lightweight to run on pc, or you can make calls to the namecoin enabled DNS servers out there if you trust them. Namecoin is still working but just waiting for more applications, this will be an excellent one.

I pulled this out of my IRC log:

[02:45:51] <gmaxwell> It's more or less dead now— pretty much abandoned by its creators... it's been sort of spammed to death because they massively lowered the cost to get names, so there is effectively no anti-dos in it anymore.
[02:46:03] <gmaxwell> Which is quite sad, because it's a useful idea.
[02:46:58] <gmaxwell> There are some fundimental challenges, e.g. it's not possible today to have a lite (not full blockchain) namecoin resolver which is secure.. though its fundimentally possible to create.
[02:49:03] <Atheros2> That's unfortunate. I was thinking about why it couldn't be (or hasn't been) used to alias Bitcoin addresses but I guess that is the reason.
[02:49:23] <gmaxwell> (it seems that all altchains get more or less technically abandoned... none of them even bother to backport critical security fixes from bitcoin)
[02:49:36] <Atheros2> hmm
[02:49:54] <gmaxwell> Atheros2: well it could be but you currently would need a copy of the whole namecoin chain, which is small compared to bitcoin but _huge_ compared to the actual amount of namecoin usage.
[02:50:25] <Atheros2> gmaxwell: I see.
[02:50:27] <gmaxwell> (nmc's database is about 1.1gb right now)
[02:50:39] <Atheros2> gmaxwell: Indeed, that's pretty big.
[02:51:09] <gmaxwell> it would be bigger but it seems it's too boring to even bother attacking right now.

Yeah, gmaxwell has had some sort of vendetta going against namecoiners for a while now ... but he whinges about a lot of things, so who's to know how serious he is?

[HostFat]

Steps:
1) Created the first identity.
2) Created the second identity
3) Set Tor proxy on network settings
4) Restarted Bitmessage
5) Sent a message from the first identity to the second
6) The message remain on status "Sending public key request. Waiting for reply. Requested at ......"

I have already wrote the same on your forum, but I didn't get a reply.

[Atheros]

Steps:
1) Created the first identity.
2) Created the second identity
3) Set Tor proxy on network settings
4) Restarted Bitmessage
5) Sent a message from the first identity to the second
6) The message remain on status "Sending public key request. Waiting for reply. Requested at ......"

I have already wrote the same on your forum, but I didn't get a reply.

Sorry, I hadn't checked the forum today.
Are you trying to send a message from one identity to the other on the same machine?

EDIT:I assume this is the case. Bitmessage currently does not process its own messages and public key requests- it only broadcasts them to other nodes. But evidently it needs to process them so that tests like yours will succeed. I will have it fixed shortly or at least will prevent the UI from going forward with the send.