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

[HostFat]

0.2.6

• New Feature: Pseudo-mailing-lists (available by right-clicking one of your addresses)
• New Feature: Portable Mode (available in the settings)
• Added missing context menu on the blacklist tab

Faster than the dev

[Snowfire]

Any chance of getting Bitmessage to support file attachments? This would make it more like full-fledged email rather than "email lite" as it is now.

[HostFat]

You can still upload files on filehosting and sharing the link, I think it's better than moving them on the entire Bitmessage network.
Anyway, you can use base32.

[Atheros]

Any chance of getting Bitmessage to support file attachments? This would make it more like full-fledged email rather than "email lite" as it is now.

Yes, I/We just need to research and decide on an encoding format for messages. MIME would be good except that whatever format we use should use 8 bit bytes rather than 7 bit bytes since we have all 8 to work with (unlike what SMTP has).

[HostFat]

@Atheros
Are you going to make a wikipedia page about your project? I think you should

There are already three sources that talk about it:
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitmessage-a-model-for-a-new-web-2-0/
https://citizenweb.is/news/2013/02/bitmessage-encrypted-messaging-bitcoin-style/
http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/bitmessage-completely-broken-crypto/

[Atheros]

@Atheros
Are you going to make a wikipedia page about your project? I think you should

There are already three sources that talk about it:
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitmessage-a-model-for-a-new-web-2-0/
https://citizenweb.is/news/2013/02/bitmessage-encrypted-messaging-bitcoin-style/
http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/bitmessage-completely-broken-crypto/

Hmm... Maybe soon. But not yet.

[HostFat]

Now I hope that someone will port it as Chrome and Android app

[MadSweeney]

A Chrome addon? The article Javascript Cryptography Considered Harmful is still on my mind.

[Atheros]

A Chrome addon? The article Javascript Cryptography Considered Harmful is still on my mind.

A web-based Bitmessage client should never exist. Just like that article talks about, there is no way to securely deliver the code. If HTTPS is secure and trustworthy then Bitmessage need-not exist. I argue that it isn't.

[HostFat]

A web-based Bitmessage client should never exist. Just like that article talks about, there is no way to securely deliver the code. If HTTPS is secure and trustworthy then Bitmessage need-not exist. I argue that it isn't.

I was thinking about something like this as chrome app: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cryptocat/gonbigodpnfghidmnphnadhepmbabhij
And working in backround, as this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chat-for-google/nckgahadagoaajjgafhacjanaoiihapd

[stevegee58]

I'm continuing to observe the BitMessage client occasionally use 100% cpu without my doing anything.  I left it running overnight and woke up to find it like this.  In fact it was unresponsive and had to be killed using process explorer.

This is the latest version 0.2.6.

[Atheros]

I'm continuing to observe the BitMessage client occasionally use 100% cpu without my doing anything.  I left it running overnight and woke up to find it like this.  In fact it was unresponsive and had to be killed using process explorer.

This is the latest version 0.2.6.

Thank you for reporting the problem. I'll keep it in mind to see if a cause can be identified.

[3btc]

  I was waiting for such thing for sooo long!!! I just found it today when I did my quarterly search for "decentral email". YAY!

And thanks that it already has a portable mode. (Attachments would be awesome, of course.)

[AsymmetricInformation]

Random Thought:

Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).

Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.

My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?

People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!

Thoughts?

[phelix]

Random Thought:

Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).

Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.

My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?

People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!

Thoughts?

+1

[Atheros]

Random Thought:

Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).

Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.

My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?

People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!

Thoughts?

A Bitmessage address can be turned into a Bitcoin address but a Bitcoin address cannot be turned into a Bitmessage address. This is because a Bitcoin address is a hash of one public key while a Bitmessage address is a hash of two public keys- one for encryption and one for signing. If we were to retool Bitmessage and use a Bitcoin address as a Bitmessage address, the first problem that comes to mind is that we would essentially be using an cryptographic key previously used for only signing now also for encryption which could leak information about the private key.

I don't think that Bitcoin and Bitmessage will ever share cryptographic keys although it is certainly possible, if Bitcoin and something like Namecoin are ever more integrated, to be able to derive one type of address from the other in a very user friendly way. This would have other benefits- anyone could send a bitcoin or a bitmessage to 'AsymmetricInformation' without having to deal with either type of address at all.

[phelix]

Random Thought:

Why not import an actual bitcoin private key as the address-generator passphrase, and force Bitmessage to generate "the" associated bitcoin address (http://brainwallet.org/), and then concatenate "BM-" to that as the BitMessage Address? This could be have a special designation like "Dual Address" (possibly you actually concatenate "BTC-" to it instead).

Then BM could work WITH Bitcoin and every Bitcoin user would have the ability to receive BM messages (albeit through the BM chain). Theoretically I could send a message to 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (at BM-1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T), and anyone with the private key (5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS) in their Bitcoin wallet.dat could, assuming they haven't already, install BitMessage and retrieve all of the messages sent to them. Easier to manage one online identity than two.

My understanding is that people are complaining about Satoshi dice using BTC to communicate or something, this would help solve that problem, wouldn't it? Did I misunderstand something?

People would of course retain the ability to make NEW identities/use all of the other great features of BM, but if each Bitcoin address has a provably associated BM address I think that would be pretty convenient and foster adoption!

Thoughts?

A Bitmessage address can be turned into a Bitcoin address but a Bitcoin address cannot be turned into a Bitmessage address. This is because a Bitcoin address is a hash of one public key while a Bitmessage address is a hash of two public keys- one for encryption and one for signing. If we were to retool Bitmessage and use a Bitcoin address as a Bitmessage address, the first problem that comes to mind is that we would essentially be using an cryptographic key previously used for only signing now also for encryption which could leak information about the private key.

I don't think that Bitcoin and Bitmessage will ever share cryptographic keys although it is certainly possible, if Bitcoin and something like Namecoin are ever more integrated, to be able to derive one type of address from the other in a very user friendly way. This would have other benefits- anyone could send a bitcoin or a bitmessage to 'AsymmetricInformation' without having to deal with either type of address at all.

I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.

[Atheros]

I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.

But then you can see whether or not I could successfully decrypt it and in some cases you can also see the plaintext (like if Bitmessage is being used on a server for some sort of communication). This additional information could be utilized. Cryptographers will tell you that it is bad practice to use the same key for encryption and signing. And if there are people on the forum telling everyone else that it is unsafe to share keys between Bitcoin and Bitmessage then no one is going to do it (not that I would want them to).

[AsymmetricInformation]

I doubt that because I can use your public key from the blockchain to encrypt messages against your will.

But then you can see whether or not I could successfully decrypt it and in some cases you can also see the plaintext (like if Bitmessage is being used on a server for some sort of communication). This additional information could be utilized. Cryptographers will tell you that it is bad practice to use the same key for encryption and signing. And if there are people on the forum telling everyone else that it is unsafe to share keys between Bitcoin and Bitmessage then no one is going to do it (not that I would want them to).

Thanks for the fast response!

But to sign a message with a bitcoin address we use not the public key but the private key, right?

Again I'm not suggesting the entire messaging system be reworked, just that a neat feature be added...is it possible to generate a different type of address (the label I threw out before was "Dual Address") which, unlike usual BM addresses, is the hash of the unique public key associated with a given bitcoin ECDSA private key (and possibly starts with "BTC-" instead of "BM-")?

Is it actually impossible to get that idea to work with the BitMessage system?

[Atheros]

But to sign a message with a bitcoin address we use not the public key but the private key, right?

Right

is it possible to generate a different type of address (the label I threw out before was "Dual Address") which, unlike usual BM addresses, is the hash of the unique public key associated with a given bitcoin ECDSA private key (and possibly starts with "BTC-" instead of "BM-")?

Yes. We could also just use Bitcoin addresses at that point which might make users happier.

Is it actually impossible to get that idea to work with the BitMessage system?

Actually I suppose that a bitcoin private key could be used to sign a message saying that they assert that new_pub_key_1 is to be used for signing and new_pub_key_2 is to be used for encryption. That would work. Then users could use their Bitcoin addresses in Bitmessage. This would require that users import their wallet keys into Bitmessage (or vise-versa).

I believe that this is futile in any case: Bitcoin will (or at least should) someday switch to Pay-to-script-hash because it will help keep the long-term size of the blockchain down.