Bitcoin Forum
January 20, 2019, 02:29:56 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: "John Dillon" We can leak things too you trolling piece of shit  (Read 9920 times)
jdillon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 04:47:55 PM
 #1

http://pastebin.com/4BcycXUu
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Barek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 05:01:17 PM
 #2

Would probably help if you/someone quoted the relevant parts.

Or maybe I'm the only lazy one here. Smiley
TKeenan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 872
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 16, 2013, 05:01:49 PM
 #3

What the hell!!!!   That is some serious shitake.  Does everyone know Peter Todd is involved with this kind of activity?  I see a crash coming when this gets out.  
lucaspm98
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 05:08:48 PM
 #4

Would probably help if you/someone quoted the relevant parts.

Or maybe I'm the only lazy one here. Smiley
No you're not, this is impossible to read and comprehend in its current state...
archangel689
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 06:01:00 PM
 #5

"You know that Mike and similar will counter-argue
that mining needs to be done by "responsible" central authority figures running
pools, so let them make that bogus argument."
kwest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 477
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 07:58:47 PM
 #6

Um... so what is this exactly? TL;DR? ELI5? etc.
bbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 08:04:00 PM
 #7

Um... so what is this exactly? TL;DR? ELI5? etc.

wtf is going on I agree.


           █████████████████     ████████
          █████████████████     ████████
         █████████████████     ████████
        █████████████████     ████████
       ████████              ████████
      ████████              ████████
     ████████     ███████  ████████     ████████
    ████████     █████████████████     ████████
   ████████     █████████████████     ████████
  ████████     █████████████████     ████████
 ████████     █████████████████     ████████
████████     ████████  ███████     ████████
            ████████              ████████
           ████████              ████████
          ████████     █████████████████
         ████████     █████████████████
        ████████     █████████████████
       ████████     █████████████████
▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
▬▬ THE LARGEST & MOST TRUSTED ▬▬
      BITCOIN SPORTSBOOK     
   ▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄           
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█                    ▀▄          █
 █   ▀▌     ██▄        █          █               
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████▄█████████████████████▄
   ▀▄     ███████▀                  ▀██
    █      ▀█████    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
     █       ▀███   ████      ████   ██
     ▀▄        ██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
      █        ██        ▄██▄        ██
       █       ██        ▀██▀        ██
       ▀▄      ██    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
        █      ██   ████      ████   ██
         █▄▄▄▄▀██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
               ██▄                  ▄██
                ▀████████████████████▀




  CASINO  ●  DICE  ●  POKER   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   24 hour Customer Support   

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 08:12:45 PM
 #8

It reads like a healthy debate about bitcoin. I'm not sure why everyone freaks out when someone wants to debate ideas that might not seem 100% kosher for bitcoin.

more or less retired.
moderate
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

nearly dead


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 08:35:36 PM
 #9

How was this leaked ? Why is the hive guy there ?
Rez
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2013, 09:16:43 PM
 #10

"Only extremely narrow dogmatic ideological purity is permitted in this Libertarian Bitcoin Utopia. Free expression of a variety of ideas that may or may not reflect a particular opinion but rather explore the spectrum of current thinking in the realm of cybercurrency is forbidden. We're liberty-loving freethinkers here, after all."

BITCOIN.SL Domain for Sale - ฿5.00 - Bitcoin Only - Escrow OK
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1009


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 10:01:13 PM
 #11

It reads like a healthy debate about bitcoin. I'm not sure why everyone freaks out when someone wants to debate ideas that might not seem 100% kosher for bitcoin.

While the reading was tough going due to format, I saw nothing whatsoever which I found surprising.  My eyes glazed over before the text ran out though.

The content matched very well what I would have expected from Dillon, Todd, Maxwell, and tangentially Andreson and the expectations of Hearn, etc.

In short, If this material is supposed to be some of a devastating leak, it was a complete air-ball IMHO.

I've not been exposed to Murk's writing much, but the block about 3/4 down was very indicative of someone who is pretty clued in.  If it were Murks.


videos4btc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 16, 2013, 11:57:33 PM
 #12

How was this leaked ? Why is the hive guy there ?

which one is the hive guy?
r3wt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


always the student, never the master.


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 12:01:39 AM
 #13

I'm not sure why everyone freaks out when someone wants to debate ideas that might not seem 100% kosher for bitcoin.


You mean like you have no idea why? here's a hint--"we don't like people fucking with bitcoin. if it aint broke dont fix it."

My negative trust rating is reflective of a personal vendetta by someone on default trust.
moderate
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

nearly dead


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 12:04:24 AM
 #14

How was this leaked ? Why is the hive guy there ?

which one is the hive guy?

Search for hive.


Ok, I think I get it. This is just a "dump" from http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development, yes ? I'm so disappointed with you guys..
wtogami
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 12:35:19 AM
 #15

Impressive.  It seems he was totally compromised, bitcointalk account and GPG key.  It isn't clear what agenda is trying to be achieved by the leaker.

If you appreciate my work please consider making a small donation.
BTC:  1LkYiL3RaouKXTUhGcE84XLece31JjnLc3      LTC:  LYtrtYZsVSn5ymhPepcJMo4HnBeeXXVKW9
GPG: AEC1884398647C47413C1C3FB1179EB7347DC10D
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1007


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2013, 12:42:18 AM
Last edit: November 17, 2013, 12:57:47 AM by Phinnaeus Gage
 #16

Quote
No you're not, this is impossible to read and comprehend in its current state...

Let's see if it's easier to read in this format (Part 1 due to its size):

Quote
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
That's a fair point. I'll increase the reward to $1000USD.

Glad to hear about your progress! Keep me updated.
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Apr 2013 12:11:05 PM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Speaking of surprising people, I heard back from a site that they'd
really like another month before anything happens with replacement, so
all the more reason to not sweat it.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention it on the forums.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000060acb759e42502fa08143a91796f9720b67813d77d879d1d28
gpg: Signature made Sun 05 May 2013 08:30:47 PM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Just a request, could you sign my PGP key?

As you have probably guessed my intent is to stay anonymous. This is my real
name, but not my usual email, so the usual PGP web of trust procedures don't
really apply.

Basically, when you get down to it the question is if this PGP key corresponds
to my identity, and that identity is Bitcoin John Dillon right now.

Thanks,

John Dillon (whomever that may be)
gpg: Signature made Mon 29 Apr 2013 03:03:15 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:04:30AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> Just a request, could you sign my PGP key?
>
> As you have probably guessed my intent is to stay anonymous. This is my real
> name, but not my usual email, so the usual PGP web of trust procedures don't
> really apply.
>
> Basically, when you get down to it the question is if this PGP key corresponds
> to my identity, and that identity is Bitcoin John Dillon right now.

Hmm... Yeah, I think you have a good point; I'll sign it. I mentioned
the exact same issue with Satoshi's PGP key actually in a pull-req with
regard to the foundation bylaws. (they referenced his key by the
insecure 32-bit keyid)

Nice job with the PGP keys... maybe it's all the better that we have
people like you making that kind of "dirty work" happen and
demonstrating attacks in a relatively controlled way. Personally I'm of
the opinion that *if* the 1MB blocksize is kept the way it is, allowing
data in the chain isn't a disaster. ~57GB a year is a lot sure, but it's
a managable problem.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
gpg: Signature made Mon 29 Apr 2013 03:14:13 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
I hope that helped you guys, but sadly I think you are up against people who
simply have an axe to grind. Still let me know if I can help in the future.

Looks like I am going to have some substantial commitments around the time of
the conference. Not sure exactly when but I'll likely be out of email contact
for two or three weeks. You might want to do the same sometimes too you know,
at least when it comes to forums and github. Focus is good sometimes.

Just a suggestion...

> Can you write something reasonable here?
gpg: Signature made Wed 01 May 2013 02:56:43 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
FWIW I have Jabber chat on pete@petertodd.org

Use off-the-record encryption, passphrase verification word 195618d5

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000195618d5c4434d24ac955acbc265c4f3b15ecc2c47c572a1b7e
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 May 2013 03:35:58 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Here's my new section. What do you think?

Section 2.2     Transact on Their Own Terms: The Corporation recognizes the decentralized, consensus-based nature of the Bitcoin technology. The Corporation will seek to protect and promote decentralization through legal and technical means, including, but not limited to, the fungibility of individual Bitcoins, the ability of individuals to participate fully in Bitcoin by running full validating nodes, the ability of individuals to operate a full validating node anonymously, and the ability to chose what level of privacy their transactions will have, including anonymously.
gpg: Signature made Fri 03 May 2013 02:59:57 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
That's a fair point. I'll increase the reward to $1000USD.

Glad to hear about your progress! Keep me updated.
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Apr 2013 12:11:05 PM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Speaking of surprising people, I heard back from a site that they'd
really like another month before anything happens with replacement, so
all the more reason to not sweat it.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention it on the forums.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000060acb759e42502fa08143a91796f9720b67813d77d879d1d28
gpg: Signature made Sun 05 May 2013 08:30:47 PM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Speaking of surprising people, I heard back from a site that they'd
really like another month before anything happens with replacement, so
all the more reason to not sweat it.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention it on the forums.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000060acb759e42502fa08143a91796f9720b67813d77d879d1d28
gpg: Signature made Sun 05 May 2013 08:30:47 PM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Speaking of surprising people, I heard back from a site that they'd
really like another month before anything happens with replacement, so
all the more reason to not sweat it.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention it on the forums.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000060acb759e42502fa08143a91796f9720b67813d77d879d1d28
gpg: Signature made Sun 05 May 2013 08:30:47 PM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Just a request, could you sign my PGP key?

As you have probably guessed my intent is to stay anonymous. This is my real
name, but not my usual email, so the usual PGP web of trust procedures don't
really apply.

Basically, when you get down to it the question is if this PGP key corresponds
to my identity, and that identity is Bitcoin John Dillon right now.

Thanks,

John Dillon (whomever that may be)
gpg: Signature made Mon 29 Apr 2013 03:03:15 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 03:04:30AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> Just a request, could you sign my PGP key?
>
> As you have probably guessed my intent is to stay anonymous. This is my real
> name, but not my usual email, so the usual PGP web of trust procedures don't
> really apply.
>
> Basically, when you get down to it the question is if this PGP key corresponds
> to my identity, and that identity is Bitcoin John Dillon right now.

Hmm... Yeah, I think you have a good point; I'll sign it. I mentioned
the exact same issue with Satoshi's PGP key actually in a pull-req with
regard to the foundation bylaws. (they referenced his key by the
insecure 32-bit keyid)

Nice job with the PGP keys... maybe it's all the better that we have
people like you making that kind of "dirty work" happen and
demonstrating attacks in a relatively controlled way. Personally I'm of
the opinion that *if* the 1MB blocksize is kept the way it is, allowing
data in the chain isn't a disaster. ~57GB a year is a lot sure, but it's
a managable problem.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
gpg: Signature made Mon 29 Apr 2013 03:14:13 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
I hope that helped you guys, but sadly I think you are up against people who
simply have an axe to grind. Still let me know if I can help in the future.

Looks like I am going to have some substantial commitments around the time of
the conference. Not sure exactly when but I'll likely be out of email contact
for two or three weeks. You might want to do the same sometimes too you know,
at least when it comes to forums and github. Focus is good sometimes.

Just a suggestion...

> Can you write something reasonable here?
gpg: Signature made Wed 01 May 2013 02:56:43 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
FWIW I have Jabber chat on pete@petertodd.org

Use off-the-record encryption, passphrase verification word 195618d5

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000195618d5c4434d24ac955acbc265c4f3b15ecc2c47c572a1b7e
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 May 2013 03:35:58 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Here's my new section. What do you think?

Section 2.2     Transact on Their Own Terms: The Corporation recognizes the decentralized, consensus-based nature of the Bitcoin technology. The Corporation will seek to protect and promote decentralization through legal and technical means, including, but not limited to, the fungibility of individual Bitcoins, the ability of individuals to participate fully in Bitcoin by running full validating nodes, the ability of individuals to operate a full validating node anonymously, and the ability to chose what level of privacy their transactions will have, including anonymously.
gpg: Signature made Fri 03 May 2013 02:59:57 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
This is going to be the text of my pull-req. What do you think?


Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin because he wanted another way to pay people over the internet. If that was all he wanted to do, he could have done it via conventional, legal means. Setup some company, hire some lawyers, navigate regulation.

What is special about Bitcoin is that it is a technology, not an organization. As Satoshi said:

> Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

Bitcoin is an idea, expressed in code, and a group of people who chose to accept and value that idea. The Bitcoin idea places as little trust in others as possible, and for what remains, the valid transactions placed into the blockchain, the decision is made by a democratic vote among everyone who possesses hashing power. It is decentralization that makes the Bitcoin idea valuable, and what makes it so fundamentally revolutionary compared to what came before it.

Without decentralization Bitcoin is just another way to pay people over the internet. A Bitcoin where only a select few can participate in that democratic vote is simply not the Bitcoin Satoshi created, and is no different from the centralized systems that came before it.

Anonymity is a key part of true decentralized decision making. Without anonymity you can-not make decisions freely, decisions like what transactions you accept as valid Bitcoins, and what transactions you place into the blocks you mine. It is notable that Satoshi himself wisely decided to use a pseudonym rather than his real identity, allowing him to make choices about Bitcoin free of interference from authorities.

While the blockchain technology will always be public to some degree, we must not promote further encroachment on the ability of individuals to transact and mine with the privacy that they desire, be it fully anonymous, or no privacy at all. User-defined privacy must continue to remain a part of Bitcoin and the Foundation should promote and develop technologies that expand upon the options available, and make the whole spectrum of privacy options easier to access by all users.

Finally, pragmatically speaking, the Foundation has been repeatedly attacked by those who see it as contrary to that decentralized nature of Bitcoin. To some extent those people are right: like it or not the Foundation has a significant amount of control over the direction of Bitcoin by employing Gavin and funding development. There are very real social reasons why that control exists. By making a clear statement of purpose that includes decentralization, the foundation can help meet those concerns.

Of course the Foundation is not Bitcoin. If the Foundation does not support these goals and values, the only honest thing to do is make it clear what goals and values the Foundation does have, so people can make an informed decision about whether they want to support it, or some other group.
gpg: Signature made Fri 03 May 2013 04:00:32 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Posted to the forums.

I don't have a reddit account, but I'll make one and do the post early tomorrow
morning.
gpg: Signature made Fri 03 May 2013 04:18:19 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Posted: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dlw10/the_bitcoin_foundation_doesnt_have_keeping/
gpg: Signature made Fri 03 May 2013 07:27:52 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:44:47AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> > Posted: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dlw10/the_bitcoin_foundation_doesnt_have_keeping/

> I think you sent me the wrong attachment

I appear to have deleted it.

Anyway I was replying to your replacement message and said that yes I think you
have a good idea with releasing, so go ahead and do that. Setup say 5 servers
on EC2 for testnet for the testing.

We will say you have the money at this point to discourage others who may be
less ethical about their release schedule. Let me know when the servers are
ready and I will make a bigger post.

> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000c2154168bfc477ce1efee8eb40ed63534ab5933ac419b072

What is this?
gpg: Signature made Thu 09 May 2013 01:06:06 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:26:15PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:

We're good to go. The branch is:
https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/tree/replace-by-fee

People can -addnode=testnet-replace-by-fee.bitcoin.petertodd.org to use
it. Point out the usual stuff about why doesn't do recursion, or have
any additional features.

I setup about 25 micro servers, that's like $60-$100 a month or
something? I'll see how it goes - fun to play around re: relaying.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000012cce84b6cc078aedd7ee93a8ceb65e29e6ed3225505dae87fb
gpg: Signature made Thu 09 May 2013 09:34:38 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Gavin really pissed me off here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2113288#msg2113288

I'm thinking of posting to the -development email list asking the developers
point blank about why they don't challenge him on that stuff. I'll mention the
distributed hash tables thing he was saying earlier for solving mining
scalability too.

He knows you aren't that stupid.


Anyway, I'll try to be at the conference. If I can get in a situation where we
can chat securely I'll use the code-word "powpos dht proof" in conjunction with
"john dillon" to let you know you are actually talking to me. No guarantees
I'll make it out though.
gpg: Signature made Sat 11 May 2013 07:27:30 PM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Ok, I replied on the forums instead.

The SPV attack is a good idea! Lets do it, and lets do it anonymously. Tell me
what your priorities are for after-conf work.

I'll think further about the identity thing. I will say I have been very
careful to date. Possibly satoshi-level careful?

The bitcoincard people posted BTW. You would like my comment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=202558.msg2118675#msg2118675
gpg: Signature made Sun 12 May 2013 06:28:26 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:29:20AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> 2013/5/12 Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>:
> >

> Ok, I replied on the forums instead.
>
> The SPV attack is a good idea! Lets do it, and lets do it anonymously. Tell me
> what your priorities are for after-conf work.

1) replace-by-fee: we need to make this usable. So incorporate wallet
fixes so using it doesn't mess your wallet up, then add the "try to
undo" and "change fees" features.

2) P2P network messaging with hashcash anti-DDoS. Make this a general
thing, with specific message types. The hashcash will be used for
priority ordering.

3) Trust-free mix system on top of the P2P thing. Figuring out how to
handle change will be hard... I should do a write-up and post it to
bitcoin-development email list and get the ball rolling there.

SPV attack - lets be more clever about it... why actually do it when we
can start a fake company offering the service?

> I'll think further about the identity thing. I will say I have been very
> careful to date. Possibly satoshi-level careful?

Good. Remember that your choices are limited when you have to think
about the legality of your actions.

> The bitcoincard people posted BTW. You would like my comment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=202558.msg2118675#msg2118675

Nice! Tracking them down at the conf is on my todo list.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000005d1d1546621ac84fe648875e58eac79e17e8be3e30bbe37a0c
gpg: Signature made Mon 13 May 2013 03:06:30 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Interesting message I got from Gavin.

Regarding my schedule I'll be back in contact for sure two weeks after the
conference. As I say below you do what you feel is right with replace-by-fee.
I'm looking forward to seeing the video! You will see some more support from me
in the future with it too. My bitcoins aren't accessible right now due to some
travel, but you can say in the forums you have gotten another 1BTC from me
today. I will make good on that promise.[size]


Hey John:

Are you running a bitcoin-based business? What's your background?

Nope. I and my partners are all involved with Bitcoin as investors. Nothing fancy, just an small group who care deeply about financial freedom and privacy and are investing what we can afford to lose. I think I'm still the only one who has become active with the community.

I haven't been a programmer for awhile, the usual management career track got me, but math and computer science theory hasn't exactly changed.

And will I get a chance to meet/talk with you at the conference this weekend?

Unfortunately not. I have a few weeks of other commitments starting very soon. I probably won't even be looking at my email. Peter will be handling replace-by-fee. I fully trust his judgement about how to proceed.
gpg: Signature made Tue 14 May 2013 02:35:14 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 02:36:10AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> Interesting message I got from Gavin.

Huh, yeah he sent me a similar one, but aimed at "what should I tell
people asking to hire developers?"

Obviously he's taking you seriously - a good thing I think. That post by
Mike Hern about putting you on his ignore list is similar really...

> Regarding my schedule I'll be back in contact for sure two weeks after the
> conference. As I say below you do what you feel is right with replace-by-fee.
> I'm looking forward to seeing the video! You will see some more support from me
> in the future with it too. My bitcoins aren't accessible right now due to some
> travel, but you can say in the forums you have gotten another 1BTC from me
> today. I will make good on that promise.

Thanks! Yeah, no rush about actual funds, I've got cheap rates on my
line-of-credit.

re: replace-by-fee I think I'll do a version that "solves" the DoS
problem by simply not replacing transactions that have been re-spent, a
good half measure in any case that again further reduces harm. I'll
implement that right after the conference.

The code for it is also easier too, so it's more likely to get accepted
by miners.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000ed82fe4ffbf5677d6fc1ee304186288eb13358cf32418d0c31
gpg: Signature made Tue 14 May 2013 03:08:29 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
> ./bitcoin-qt -salvagewallet
>
> Doesn't work when there isn't a wallet at all.
>
> Good to get your name in the Bitcoin sourecode credits I think - adds
> some credibility.

Thanks. I'll look into that.
gpg: Signature made Tue 28 May 2013 04:57:44 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:58:16AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> > ./bitcoin-qt -salvagewallet
> >=20
> > Doesn't work when there isn't a wallet at all.
> >=20
> > Good to get your name in the Bitcoin sourecode credits I think - adds
> > some credibility.
>=20
> Thanks. I'll look into that.

Also, on decentralizing mining, I had the idea of adding a UDP method
for very fast distribution of block headers and tiny full blocks. The
idea here is the moment a new block is created, every miner should
immediately start working on a block that would orphan that block with
only the coinbase TX in it.

This punishes blocks that take a long time to propegate, particularly
for miners behind low-bandwidth links. It'll be a nice natural incentive
towards smaller blocks, although I do worry a bit about how the idea
could be latched onto as "well obviously we *can* increase the blocksize
now!"

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000001027c8b5ae04fce5ccf3948a15e137dab152e62450fd998c3ae
gpg: Signature made Tue 28 May 2013 05:22:58 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID F0F0B355, created 1999-11-27
      "Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
> I was talking with Gregory Maxwell about decentralizing mining at the
> conference. He came up with the idea of tightly integrating mining
> functionality into the client using Luke Dashjr's getblocktemplate
> protocol; the existing getwork is not compatible with ASICs. The idea
> would be to make solo-mining as easy as possible, and further more to
> move pools to a structure where the pool's function is to co-ordinate
> share payments, not block construction. Essentially hashers would become
> true miners, doing transaction selection on their own, and then pools
> would credit them for their shares and do the accounting. In this model
> all a pool can do is defraud miners rather than harm to the whole
> network.

Smart idea.
 
> It's also nice because by doing so we make the dangers of a large block
> size very clear by making large numbers of miners see immediately how it
> makes it difficult for them to operate. We also make changing the size
> more difficult in general because the decision then becomes one that
> hundreds or even thousands of miners need to make individually, greatly
> slowing down any possible change. Of course, I didn't say any of that...

Why not go ahead and say it? You know that Mike and similar will counter-argue
that mining needs to be done by "responsible" central authority figures running
pools, so let them make that bogus argument. I've seen Gavin criticising you
for not working on making mining decentralized too, so go ahead and force him
into a position of arguing against that.

People criticise you for your motivations all the time. Don't give them more
ammo. Being totally upfront about why you are pushing decentralized mining is a
good thing. In my opinion what you are doing is obvious anyway.


Regarding your idea for fast block header propagation, and delibrate orphaning
by miners, I like it and I too worry that it could be seen as an excuse to
increase the blocksize. Maybe keep that one secret for now, but look into the
infrastructure to make it possible? It would make sense to have a UDP-based
block header distribution channel for a lot of things, like you keep saying
with blockheaders over twitter and other fun. The system doesn't need to be
able to propagate whole blocks in UDP packets however technically possible it
is.

Regarding rational, also point out that mining ontop of a block that you have
not verified fully is always unacceptable due to attacks. Reducing your block
size to zero transactions just makes sense in terms of rational miner behavior.
Why work on something that you know has a high chance of not propegating fast
enough to win the race?

> I think the devs should direct the 10BTC donation you made a few months
> ago to this effort - would you and your partners be willing to commit
> some more funds? I can throw in some BTC myself. Greg, Luke and I have
> talked about possibly doing this an a public assurance contract. Keep in
> mind that you lot have created a fair bit of controversy - donating
> towards something less controversial than replace-by-fee and my video
> could help out.

I do not donate funds with strings attached, but if the dev team needs any
guidance of what to do with that 10BTC, I think this is an excellent project to
use it with.

We can donate further funds, but show me the concrete proposal first with scope
etc. Your keepbitcoinfree-announce post seemed to say you were going to post to
troll-talk, do so.

Speaking of donations, I saw someone with ~180BTC made a 10BTC donation to your
address. Good work! I also finally got a chance to see the video after dealing
with Monday obligations. It is excellent work and very professional. I heard
too through the grapevine about the response you got a the developer round
table at the conference. I would say Peter Vanesse seems way out of touch with
regard to privacy, and good that you got a small crowd after the discussion
talking about decentralization.

I'd be interested in slides of your talk if you have them. Do you know when
video is going to be made available by the foundation?
 
> In addition a video advocating to miners to run the software would be
> good too. The idea is non-political enough - at first glance - that the
> Bitcoin Foundation may be willing to help fund it through one of their
> grants. (the next cycle's deadline is june, probably too early, but the
> one after that isn't far away)

If you take my suggestion of being up-front about the decentralization reasons
for doing this, it will be interesting to see the response of the Foundation,
or for that matter, integrating those changes in the reference client anyway.
gpg: Signature made Tue 28 May 2013 05:43:38 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
> What are your thoughts on scamcoins?

Everything but namecoin and maybe litecoin is a scamcoin and they deserve to
die.

> I might have a project for you...

Huh
gpg: Signature made Sun 07 Jul 2013 11:24:50 PM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 4096-bit RSA key, ID 0753963A, created 2013-07-03
      "w@grabhive.com <w@grabhive.com>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
   boundary="Apple-Mail=_76C11B8F-5F49-418B-93E5-8B41E8442FE7";
   protocol="application/pgp-signature";
   micalg=pgp-sha1


--Apple-Mail=_76C11B8F-5F49-418B-93E5-8B41E8442FE7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
   charset=us-ascii

[resending in case you didn't get this; have been having Mail trouble -- =
my GPG key is on the keyserver]

Hi John,

I saw Peter Todd's post recently that he received funding from you for =
work on replace-by-fee, and of course I've also seen your various =
rewards and bounties placed elsewhere. As I am also interested in =
helping to fund some of this work, I thought perhaps we could get to =
know each other and join forces as appropriate?

On my side we are working on Hive, which is a user-friendly Bitcoin =
wallet for OS X (and eventually Android). Most of my interests lie in =
speed and reliability rather than cutting-edge features. I saw your =
campaign Keep Bitcoin Free!... If you don't mind my asking, what else =
are you working on?

Cheers John,
-wendell

grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411


--Apple-Mail=_76C11B8F-5F49-418B-93E5-8B41E8442FE7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
   filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
   name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
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=b8B6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_76C11B8F-5F49-418B-93E5-8B41E8442FE7--

gpg: encrypted with 4096-bit RSA key, ID 0753963A, created 2013-07-03
      "w@grabhive.com <w@grabhive.com>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
If you could, please use the "inline" mode for PGP. I know it is a bit
old-fashioned, but it is easier for me to use given that I use the gmail web
interface directly. Do keep using encryption though!

> Hi John,
>
> I saw Peter Todd's post recently that he received funding from you for =
> work on replace-by-fee, and of course I've also seen your various =
> rewards and bounties placed elsewhere. As I am also interested in =
> helping to fund some of this work, I thought perhaps we could get to =
> know each other and join forces as appropriate?

Good idea.
 
> On my side we are working on Hive, which is a user-friendly Bitcoin =
> wallet for OS X (and eventually Android). Most of my interests lie in =
> speed and reliability rather than cutting-edge features. I saw your =
> campaign Keep Bitcoin Free!... If you don't mind my asking, what else =
> are you working on?

To clarify Keep Bitcoin Free! is Peter's project, not mine. I only contributed
funds and offered to let him use my name publicly as a supporter.

To be frank I have a lot of commitments in life between work and family, I
apologise for how I can only really reply on weekends at best, but I have been
following Bitcoin for years and consider it one of the most important
cryptography projects out there. I also am very concerned with the long-term
viability of Bitcoin with regard to preserving its decentralization and
privacy. (you may have seen my pull-request to add decentraliztion to the
foundation bylaws:
https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/pull/4) Keeping
Bitcoin fast, reliable and accesible for your average user is definitely an
important part of my goals.

What are your thoughts on SPV/partial mode? Myself I would much prefer to see
the latter implemented than the former, you may have seen myself and Peter
talking about the DoS attack risks for SPV nodes. Where are you at with regards
to hiring a developer? I'll point out that Pieter Wuille is doing some of the
initial work required, and should be involved in some way. (doesn't have to be
financial) I noticed that Pieter was involving Peter in the discussion on IRC
about his initial steps.

Beyond partial mode I am also interested in seeing node-to-node encryption and
authentication, IE SSL for peer communications, an important feature for
preserving privacy against attackers who can wiretap. For instance right now
even if you have a node that you trust, maybe your server at your house, there
isn't a good way to have your wallet on your phone or laptop connect to that
server because the connection is completely unauthenticated and unencrypted.

FWIW adding SSL to the protocol is a fairly relatively non-invasive change. It
might be worthwhile to implement that first as a means to test the developers
you wish to hire to later implement partial mode. Thoughts?
gpg: Signature made Mon 05 Aug 2013 04:32:45 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Private IRC chat:

11:11 <petertodd> Everyone knows John and I "know" each other, if anything I'd like my PGP signature on his key to
                  make the nature of that relationship understood.
11:11 <petertodd> good point
11:12 <gmaxwell> (I think half the people think you and John are the same person. Tongue )
11:12 <petertodd> ha, I know, I'll admit he kinda creeps me out a bit sometimes... he's admitted he reads all my
                  posts religiously
11:12 <gmaxwell> I keep thinking that maybe there is some crypto magic thing we can do to reduce the problem, but I
                 never seem to find one.
11:12 <petertodd> yours too BTW
11:13 <petertodd> it's like... "For fucks sake, can't you promote someone *elses* ideas for once?"
11:13 <petertodd> ugh
11:13 <gmaxwell> some kind of thing like ring signatures of all the signing parties for tokens of trust.
11:13 <petertodd> But then again, he's got money so...
11:14 <petertodd> I think part of the problem is just Bitcoin is solidly a hobby for him, and he sounds like he has
                  very little time, so he's picked a "cause" to champion, and has focused on it.

Though seriously, branch out a bit! I know time is an issue for you, but
still; I really do mean this in the nicest way.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000082d95acaae7770435e04d7543252d2a62a414614c8882fd9e4
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 05:22:49 PM GMT using DSA key ID 7F6D868C
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd (low security key) <pete@petertodd.org>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:22:49PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:

Also gavin too:

05:32 <warren> talked with gavin
05:32 <warren> he seems entirely uninterested in the connection exhaustion issue
05:32 <warren> doesn't think it's real
05:33 <warren> He also claims to not know of any more serious DoS issue enabled by bloom
05:33 <warren> and he wants to know where I heard of it
05:33 <warren> I told him I don't have permission to reveal that.
10:19 <petertodd> lol, awesome
10:19 <petertodd> bit of a joke there
14:37 <warren> what part is a joke?
14:45 <warren> oh
14:45 <warren> he also thinks jdillon and you are the same person!?
14:47 <warren> or rather a "sock puppet"
15:43 <petertodd> lol, I'm not surprised - I was talking about that with gmaxwell earlier too

Sheesh.

I'm going to write a tool to exploit the connections/bloom io thing BTW, so
don't go and offer any rewards for it please... Lets see what the reaction of
those involved is without any further drama. FWIW gmaxwell was pointing out
recently that by seeming to attack Mike you'll give him more political sway,
not less, by letting him hide behind that rather than address tech issues;
gmaxwell's opinion is that Mike doesn't have any political sway anyway.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000078b07150e0992a84dcd45866d5d998f67181b8faabd04d23da
gpg: Signature made Thu 01 Aug 2013 10:35:56 PM GMT using DSA key ID 7F6D868C
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd (low security key) <pete@petertodd.org>"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:22:49PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> Also gavin too:
>
> 05:32 <warren> talked with gavin
> 05:32 <warren> he seems entirely uninterested in the connection exhaustion issue
> 05:32 <warren> doesn't think it's real
> 05:33 <warren> He also claims to not know of any more serious DoS issue enabled by bloom
> 05:33 <warren> and he wants to know where I heard of it
> 05:33 <warren> I told him I don't have permission to reveal that.
> 10:19 <petertodd> lol, awesome
> 10:19 <petertodd> bit of a joke there
> 14:37 <warren> what part is a joke?
> 14:45 <warren> oh
> 14:45 <warren> he also thinks jdillon and you are the same person!?
> 14:47 <warren> or rather a "sock puppet"
> 15:43 <petertodd> lol, I'm not surprised - I was talking about that with gmaxwell earlier too
>
> Sheesh.
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1007


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2013, 12:42:42 AM
 #17

Part 2:

Quote
Sorry about that, if you think I've been following you too closely and pushing
your ideas too much I can back off. Thanks for letting me know this stuff
quickly though. In all honesty I don't give a damn about what the general
Bitcoin community thinks of me other than to the extent that is helps my goals
when it comes to decentralization and privacy, but that doesn't absolve me from
playing a bit of politics all the same.
 
> I'm going to write a tool to exploit the connections/bloom io thing BTW, so
> don't go and offer any rewards for it please... Lets see what the reaction of
> those involved is without any further drama. FWIW gmaxwell was pointing out
> recently that by seeming to attack Mike you'll give him more political sway,
> not less, by letting him hide behind that rather than address tech issues;
> gmaxwell's opinion is that Mike doesn't have any political sway anyway.

Ok, I'll keep bloom io on the down low then. Gregory makes a good point there,
I'll take his advice then.

What's with Gavin's pull-req on your CVE? Sounded nasty the way he didn't even
mention why it was changing things. I read Sergio's blog post, sounded like it
wasn't a big deal, and what you said about the limits of what the dev team can
do at the present time sounded reasonable to me.

Just so you know this stuff about Tor has me worried... Please don't make this
public, but my day job involves intelligence, and I'm in a relatively high
position. You know, I went into the job years ago with very different thoughts
about it than I do now. The last, well, decade really has changed a lot of
minds in this field, in totally different ways. Myself I am on the side of
Snowden and Assange, but... lets just say when you have a family your
willingness to be a martyr diminishes. The same is true of many of my
colleagues. Hopefully my support for Bitcoin can help undo some of the damage
we've done, but I do have to be careful and it's tough to take all the
precautions I need to to be able to communicate. If it was found out that I was
involved with Bitcoin that way I have been, let's just say there would be
consequences...
gpg: Signature made Mon 05 Aug 2013 04:51:27 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"


gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:52:10AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
> Just so you know this stuff about Tor has me worried... Please don't make this
> public, but my day job involves intelligence, and I'm in a relatively high
> position. You know, I went into the job years ago with very different thoughts
> about it than I do now. The last, well, decade really has changed a lot of
> minds in this field, in totally different ways. Myself I am on the side of
> Snowden and Assange, but... lets just say when you have a family your
> willingness to be a martyr diminishes. The same is true of many of my
> colleagues. Hopefully my support for Bitcoin can help undo some of the damage
> we've done, but I do have to be careful and it's tough to take all the
> precautions I need to to be able to communicate. If it was found out that I was
> involved with Bitcoin that way I have been, let's just say there would be
> consequences...

In addition to what I said earlier, I mentioned your status to a friend
of mine who is a former spook and well aware of the dangers of the
business to anyone with a sense of ethics.

He told me to tell you this, word for word: "An old crow strongly
advises you to consider the risks to yourself and your family, and stop
what you are doing." I trust his judgement, and just as importantly, his
ethics.

Be careful. Myself, I suggest you think hard about whether or not what
you are doing has had enough of an impact on your goals to be worth it -
I can't answer that question for you.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
gpg: Signature made Wed 21 Aug 2013 08:50:31 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID C162FB4C, created 2004-01-12
      "Dan Libby (aka danda) <dan@osc.co.cr>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Hi JD.

Do you know me?

If so, we have some catching up to do.   If not, my mistake.

--
Dan Libby

Open Source Consulting
San Jose, Costa Rica
http://osc.co.cr
phone: 011 506 2223 7382
Fax: 011 506 2223 7359

gpg: Signature made Mon 29 Jul 2013 05:20:33 AM GMT using DSA key ID 94E9CC1A
gpg: Good signature from "Dan Libby (aka danda) <dan@osc.co.cr>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 5C0E F833 79CB 892F 3FC9  1519 744D D69B 94E9 CC1A

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID C162FB4C, created 2004-01-12
      "Dan Libby (aka danda) <dan@osc.co.cr>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
> Hi JD.
>
> Do you know me?
>
> If so, we have some catching up to do.   If not, my mistake.

Sorry, remind me again where I would have known you from?
gpg: Signature made Mon 05 Aug 2013 04:54:35 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
Peter,

Could I please borrow just over 5.1BTC from you?

I'm away from my coins and I could really use some for the CoinJoin bounty.
Amir's ridiculous attempt to grab the bounty has gotten me rather pissed off,
and I have a statement to make.

The BTC is so I can quite clearly write that I am the largest single donator to
the fund. Perhaps silly, but statements are worth making.

You know I will pay you back.

This email isn't signed, because I don't have my PGP key with me. Thus pay the
funds to the address in my encrypted message to Gregory Maxwell in the coinjoin
thread. You'll note that I also encrypted it to you. I hope that is sufficient
to convince you that this is really me.

Thank you,

John Dillon

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:08:39AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:

Dear Nigerian Prince,

It was great to hear from you! My bank account details are...


Tell you what, given you do all your transactions in the shadows anyway,
for the record you can say you've donated the money and I'll settle the
difference with Gregory Maxwell as required.

I'm not terribly impressed with Amir either - I suspect he's introduced
a security hole by how he passes data to the command line without
escaping. You should mention that in whatever you are going to write...

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
gpg: Signature made Thu 29 Aug 2013 02:24:11 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Warren keeps asking about some email he sent you... and you still owe
me.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
gpg: Signature made Sat 21 Sep 2013 10:34:54 PM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
> Warren keeps asking about some email he sent you... and you still owe
> me.

Sorry, with the silk road and that NSA document on Tor and other things I
decided to take a break. The atmosphere has been rather tense and paranoid in
my industry lately.

I'll send Gregory Maxwell the funds ASAP and reply to Warren.

Best wishes
gpg: Signature made Sat 26 Oct 2013 04:44:55 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID F0F0B355, created 1999-11-27
      "Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
Hi Gregory,

I apologise for my tardiness, but here is the 5.11BTC I promised for the
CoinJoin effort.

It is great news to see blockchain.info implement it! I used it myself. Smiley Are
you giving them a token reward? They are a for profit venture, but all the same
a thank you recognition of some kind seems worthwhile to me.

I note that Peter Wuille still hasn't PGP signed his address...

Yours,

1BDSZMaUvrbTjWsSgLA4XqYUK4dDzxREEV
KxG9HMgaaMQKWGnht7U1gZW1iWxxNQunTa78gMkvMYSEDHbvKFuS
gpg: Signature made Sat 26 Oct 2013 05:20:28 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 8192-bit RSA key, ID 668709D4, created 2013-06-29
      "Warren Togami (2013) <wtogami@gmail.com>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Hi Warren,

I see that Peter Todd recently completed his audit report, even writing a small
patch for Litecoin.

Could you comment a bit on how that process went? I and someone else may want
to hire him directly, as opposed to the bounties I've offered before, to
implement some Bitcoin features and we want to get a sense of how it all went.
I know the tasks aren't exactly similar, but workmanship, timeliness and
professionalism apply to both all the same.

Thank you,

John Dillon
gpg: Signature made Mon 05 Aug 2013 04:24:22 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with 8192-bit RSA key, ID 668709D4, created 2013-06-29
      "Warren Togami (2013) <wtogami@gmail.com>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Hi John,

Sorry about the extremely late reply.

To be entirely honest, Peter Todd does excellent work, but perhaps not in a
timely manner.  He seems to be easily distracted from tasks and fell behind
stated deadlines a few times.  It all worked out fine in the end.

I saw and appreciate your bounties on the list.  We have been similarly
trying to encourage Gavin to take security more seriously with little
success.  He commented this in #bitcoin-dev today:

<gavinandresen> [17:09:29] (I've started to suspect jdillon is a very
sophisticated troll with the ulterior motive of destroying bitcoin)

Our team is considering funding future work to add more DoS protection
to the default Bitcoin implementation, as Litecoin has exactly the same
security issues.  

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commits/master-0.8
Note that Litecoin HEAD goes further than  Bitcoin in guarding against
problem of bloom and related risks. We are unable to explain the true
nature of these patches in public because they guard against absolutely
terrible DoS exploits that can take down ANY Bitcoin node.  So instead
we called it, "Minor efficiency improvement in block peer request handling."
which is somewhat true of the patch.

http://blog.litecoin.org
Please watch our blog in the next week.  We are starting a 501(c)(6)
which is an industry trade/professional org with the mission to advance
decentralized consensus technologies.  The chief project is Litecoin,
and we submit suggested changes to Bitcoin.  Some were already accepted
others were rejected due to our philosophical or design differences.
For example, NODE_BLOOM and the poorly explained petertodd patches
in 0.8.4.1 were proposed and rejected by Gavin.

Other projects that we have already supported include p2pool as it is
the ONLY pooling method that does not create systemic risk through
centralization.  We also want to support timestamping and other clever
non-financial uses of the blockchain as long as they do NOT cause
blockchain bloat.  Furthermore, we already have an amazingly experienced
corporate attorney to serve as General Counsel, and he wants to publish
policy whitepapers on various topics including:

* What is business friendly, appropriate regulation?
* Establish the difference between responsible and irresponsible coins.

I am curious, are you interested in supporting any of these goals with
either development or financial support?

Warren Togami
wtogami@gmail.com
808-479-6297
gpg: Signature made Fri 30 Aug 2013 04:23:41 AM GMT using RSA key ID 347DC10D
gpg: Good signature from "Warren Togami (2013) <wtogami@gmail.com>"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with 8192-bit RSA key, ID 668709D4, created 2013-06-29
      "Warren Togami (2013) <wtogami@gmail.com>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
> Hi John,
>
> Sorry about the extremely late reply.

Same here.

Had to take a break for a bit for a variety of reasons.

> To be entirely honest, Peter Todd does excellent work, but perhaps not in a
> timely manner.  He seems to be easily distracted from tasks and fell behind
> stated deadlines a few times.  It all worked out fine in the end.

That's my experience as well with my replace-by-fee bounty. Unfortunate flaw of
him, but not one I haven't seen before in smart people. The worst though it how
he doesn't at least publish. I saw some chatter about "TXO commitments" in the
bitcointalk and other places, but only see Gregory writing up a description!
Without publishing others aren't even going to do the work that you're too
flakey to actually do! Waste of a good mind in my opinion.

> I saw and appreciate your bounties on the list.  We have been similarly
> trying to encourage Gavin to take security more seriously with little
> success.  He commented this in #bitcoin-dev today:
>
> <gavinandresen> [17:09:29] (I've started to suspect jdillon is a very
> sophisticated troll with the ulterior motive of destroying bitcoin)

I suspect the same of Gavin sometimes. Oh well.

The Peter/Gavin exchange with this fee estimation business is even more
bizzare. Peter had a perfectly good point in the pull-req that the estimation
was imperfect, so the first version should be done with caution in a do no harm
fashion. Gavin's response to me seems to be one of putting down Peter's ideas
at all costs, even with what are lies. Or perhaps Gavin is just getting overly
emotional about this.

Fundementally though if Peter doesn't do the work, Gavin will succeed...
 
> Our team is considering funding future work to add more DoS protection
> to the default Bitcoin implementation, as Litecoin has exactly the same
> security issues.  

Good to hear!
 
> Other projects that we have already supported include p2pool as it is
> the ONLY pooling method that does not create systemic risk through
> centralization.  We also want to support timestamping and other clever
> non-financial uses of the blockchain as long as they do NOT cause
> blockchain bloat.  Furthermore, we already have an amazingly experienced
> corporate attorney to serve as General Counsel, and he wants to publish
> policy whitepapers on various topics including:
>
> * What is business friendly, appropriate regulation?
> * Establish the difference between responsible and irresponsible coins.
>
> I am curious, are you interested in supporting any of these goals with
> either development or financial support?

Before I respond, got an update on this effort? I googled around and haven't
seen anything.
gpg: Signature made Mon 28 Oct 2013 05:21:40 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
I see that you forgot to encrypt. Bad user-interface there. Your email client
should have easy options to let emails be forced to be encrypted in cases.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Dunno if you're actually a member, but this thread hidden away on the
> bitcoin foundation website worries me a lot:

I feel the same way.

> Anyway, blacklists is going to fuck up CoinJoin and other stuff we
> *need* for privacy. I'm sick of going up against Mike; maybe you aren't?
> I figure, post this to reddit, make it clear that we have foundation
> discussion pushing coin taint behind everyone's backs, and how it'll
> fuck up privacy in the future. The response should be loud and clear
> that coin taint is unacceptable, and fungibility must be preserved.
>
> If you need it, I can get you a copy of the whole page.

Those are all excellent points. Please send the whole thing.

The timing of this story is odd: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

I'll write up a post for reddit for tomorrow morning, EST. Are you around later
today to proof it for me?
gpg: Signature made Wed 13 Nov 2013 07:38:47 PM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Posted to the foundation forum,
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/483-bitcoin-dark-wallet/page__st__20#entry5410

Dunno if you have a membership or not.


[quote name='Saivann Carignan' timestamp='1383429407' post='5408']

Patrick Murck said it in simple terms: The use of Bitcoin will (and is) regulated, not the Bitcoin protocol itself..

He's right, but the way he's right is not at all the way you probably think he's right: Bitcoin mining can and almost certainly will be regulated, and by regulating mining you regulate all use of the Bitcoin protocol.

The first problem is ASICs, specifically the huge gulf in performance per unit cost between commodity hardware, or even hardware possible to create on a small scale with FPGAs, and ASICs. The nature of IC manufacturing is such that a very small number of companies, about two to three, can afford the immense capital costs required to operate top-of-the-line chip fabrication facilities. Put another way, the entire world's economy is unable to support a diverse IC manufacturing industry at the current level of technological sophistication.

Control those chip fabs and you control mining. It would be extremely easy for the US government to tell Intel and TSMC that from now on any wafers they process capable of doing Bitcoin mining must include additional circuits that let the US government control how, and by whom, they are used. This is a problem in general with computing, but controlling the manufacture of a special-purpose ASIC is far easier and simpler, both technologically and politically, than controlling the availability of general purpose computing hardware. Fortunately it is possible to create proof-of-work algorithms where custom ASICs have less of an advantage over general purpose hardware, but Bitcoin itself isn't going to change the algorithm.

The second problem is bandwidth: the Bitcoin protocol has atrocious scalability in that to mine blocks you must keep up with the bandwidth used by all transactions. The current 1MB blocksize is small enough to make this not a major problem yet, but if you increase that (with a hardfork!) at some point you will have increased it to the level where you can no longer mine anonymously and then regulating miners directly becomes possible. Unfortunately while technological improvements have made non-anonymous bandwidth more plentiful, for anonymous bandwidth - or even just censorship resistant bandwidth - the options are much more limited. Jurisdiction hopping is an option, but even for the likes of The Pirate Bay it's proved to be a huge pain in the ass, and they only had the relatively small media industry as their enemy rather than the much larger banking industry. (and government in general) It does appear that you could make a crypto-currency with better core scalability - as opposed to the well understood and already-used ways to fairly securely transfer funds off-chain - but no-one's quite yet figured out yet how to upgrade Bitcoin itself with those improvements.

What's interesting is with good cryptography we've figured out ways to at least detect if miners are violating every other aspect of the Bitcoin protocol: some relatively small and backwards compatible changes to the protocol allow auditing everything miners do with peicewise audits done on low-bandwidth connections. If your wallet randomly audits 0.1% of every block, and there are a few thousand like you, the chance of fraud not being detected quickly approaches zero.

But auditing can only detect if miners fail to follow the rules of the Bitcoin protocol; it can't force miners to decide to include your blacklisted transactions in a block. If a majority of hashing power is under government control, there's no way we can prevent them from blacklisting whatever they want. Secondly, if the government does decide to change the rules of the Bitcoin protocol by fiat, then what? Suppose the Federal Reserve or equivalent decides that the deflation of Bitcoin is bad for the economy, and the coin distribution schedule needs to be changed. Or perhaps the courts decide that some stolen Bitcoins, that were subsequently lost, are to be returned to their former owners in an invalid transaction. They can order the majority of hashing power to follow new rules, and while you're wallet software may detect that fraud and shutdown, what alternative do you have but to "upgrade" it to accept the new rules? If you're transactions aren't protected by the majority of hashing power, you're transaction aren't secure.

Where Dark Wallet goes wrong

This is what bothers me about their efforts: I see no reason to think they understand any of the above. They're approach of making a ground-up re-implementation of Bitcoin is fundementally flawed, both from an engineering point of view, as well as a political point of view. What they should be doing is latching on to the notion that the core Bitcoin protocol is a fixed suicide pact that must only be changed with the true consent of all users. As step #1 they should have taken the Satoshi source code, stripped out everything that isn't directly related to that core consensus protocol, and turned it into an easy to use library. Only then should they have built a wallet/node implementation around that core, unchanging, protocol.

Where Amir Taaki and the rest of the Dark Wallet team go so very wrong is they don't understand that the Bitcoin specification is the consensus-critical part of the Satoshi source code. Instead they are pursuing a ground-up re-implementation, and like it or not, they're just not smart enough to get all the details right - nobody is. Because they haven't gotten the details right, no significant amount of hashing power is going to ever use their node implementation to mine with - what pool wants to lose thousands of dollars of profit just because yet another libbitcoin consensus bug was found? Of course, with no-one using their code to mine, they have no political power - Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation's ability to control the core Bitcoin protocol is entirely based on the fact that almost all the hashing power uses the source code at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

On the other hand, if even just a quarter of the hashing power used the Dark Wallet node implementation, and could trust it because the !@#$ thing actually implemented the Satoshi protocol properly by using that protocol's source code, changing that protocol in fundemental ways would be far harder - Dark Wallet would have a lot more genuine political weight. With hashing power using that implementation, they would be able to implement their own rules for relaying transactions. For instance while much of the community complained violently about the 0.8.2 dust rule, which made it far harder to get "dust" outputs mined, if the Dark Wallet team decided they didn't like that rule and had hashing power that trusted their node implementation, they could make the rule irrelevant. They could even come up with a anything-goes mechanism with no rules at all governing what transactions got relayed, and let individual miners make those decisions.

If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do? I'd encourage ground-up alternate implementations knowing damn well that the kind of people dumb enough to work on them expecting to create a viable competitor anytime soon aren't going to succeed. Every time anyone tried mining with one, I'd use my knowledge of all the ways they are incompatible to fork them, making it clear they can't be trusted for mining. Then I'd go a step further and "for the good of Bitcoin" create a process by which regular soft-forks and hard-forks happened so that Bitcoin can be "improved" in various ways, maybe every six months. Of course, I'd involve those alternate implementations in some IETF-like standards process for show, but all I would have to do to keep them marginalized and the majority of hashing power using the approved official implementation is slip the odd consensus bug into their code; remember how it was recently leaked that the NSA spends $250 million a year on efforts to insert flaws into encryption standards and commercial products. With changes every six months the alts will never keep up. Having accomplished political control, the next step is pushing the development of the Bitcoin core protocol in ways that further my goals, such as scalability solutions that at best allow for auditing, rather waiting until protocols are developed, tested, and accepted by the community that support fully decentralized mining.

Dark Wallet has the opportunity to make the very idea of the "core" Bitcoin dev team irrelevant. But sadly Amir's lot seem to understand the art of PR a lot better than the political science of decentralized consensus systems.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000a00cb71e41c03f547da5a382ab122ec7d2dcb4b6ff7e3e532
gpg: Signature made Sun 03 Nov 2013 01:34:34 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 09:34:35PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> Posted to the foundation forum,
> https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/483-bitcoin-dark-wal=
let/page__st__20#entry5410
>=20
> Dunno if you have a membership or not.

Sorry, forgot formatting. Heck, post this elsewhere if you want.


[quote name=3D'Saivann Carignan' timestamp=3D'1383429407' post=3D'5408']
Patrick Murck said it in simple terms: The use of Bitcoin will (and is) reg=
ulated, not the Bitcoin protocol itself..
[/quote]

He's right, but the way he's right is not at all the way you probably think=
 he's right: Bitcoin mining can and almost certainly will be regulated, and=
 by regulating mining you regulate all use of the Bitcoin protocol.

The first problem is ASICs, specifically the huge gulf in performance per u=
nit cost between commodity hardware, or even hardware possible to create on=
 a small scale with FPGAs, and ASICs. The nature of IC manufacturing is suc=
h that a very small number of companies, about two to three, can afford the=
 immense capital costs required to operate top-of-the-line chip fabrication=
 facilities. Put another way, the entire world's economy is unable t=
o support a diverse IC manufacturing industry at the current level of techn=
ological sophistication.

Control those chip fabs and you control mining. It would be extremely easy =
for the US government to tell Intel and TSMC that from now on any wafers th=
ey process capable of doing Bitcoin mining must include additional circuits=
 that let the US government control how, and by whom, they are used. This i=
s a problem in gene=
ral with computing
, but controlling the manufacture of a special-purp=
ose ASIC is far easier and simpler, both technologically and politically, t=
han controlling the availability of general purpose computing hardware. For=
tunately it is possible to create proof-of-work algorithms where custom ASI=
Cs have less of an advantage over general purpose hardware, but Bitcoin its=
elf isn't going to change the algorithm.

The second problem is bandwidth: the Bitcoin protocol has atrocious scalabi=
lity in that to mine blocks you must keep up with the bandwidth used by all=
 transactions. The current 1MB blocksize is small enough to make this not a=
 major problem yet, but if you increase that (with a hardfork!) at some poi=
nt you will have increased it to the level where you can no longer mine ano=
nymously and then regulating miners directly becomes possible. Unfortunatel=
y while technological improvements have made non-anonymous bandwidth more p=
lentiful, for anonymous bandwidth - or even just censorship resistant bandw=
idth - the options are much more limited. Jurisdiction hopping is an option=
, but even for the likes of The Pirate Bay it's proved to be a huge pain in=
 the ass, and they only had the relatively small media industry as their en=
emy rather than the much larger banking industry. (and government in genera=
l) It does appear that you could make a crypto-currency with better =
core scalability - as opposed to the well understood and already-used ways =
to fairly securely transfer funds off-chain - but no-one's quite yet figure=
d out yet how to upgrade Bitcoin itself with those improvements.

What's interesting is with good cryptography we've figured out ways to at l=
east detect if miners are violating every other aspect of the Bitcoin proto=
col: some relatively small and backwards compatible changes to the protocol=
 allow auditing everything miners do with peicewise audits done on low-band=
width connections. If your wallet randomly audits 0.1% of every block, and =
there are a few thousand like you, the chance of fraud not being detected q=
uickly approaches zero.

But auditing can only detect if miners fail to follow the rules of the Bitc=
oin protocol; it can't force miners to decide to include your blacklisted t=
ransactions in a block. If a majority of hashing power is under government =
control, there's no way we can prevent them from blacklisting whatever they=
 want. Secondly, if the government does decide to change the rules of the B=
itcoin protocol by fiat, then what? Suppose the Federal Reserve or equivale=
nt decides that the deflation of Bitcoin is bad for the economy, and the co=
in distribution schedule needs to be changed. Or perhaps the courts decide =
that some stolen Bitcoins, that were subsequently lost, are to be returned =
to their former owners in an invalid transaction. They can order the majori=
ty of hashing power to follow new rules, and while you're wallet software m=
ay detect that fraud and shutdown, what alternative do you have but to "upg=
rade" it to accept the new rules? If you're transactions aren't protected b=
y the majority of hashing power, you're transaction aren't secure.

Where Dark Wallet goes wrong

This is what bothers me about their efforts: I see no reason to think they =
understand any of the above. They're approach of making a ground-up re-impl=
ementation of Bitcoin is fundementally flawed, both from an engineering poi=
nt of view, as well as a political point of view. What they should be doing=
 is latching on to the notion that the core Bitcoin protocol is a fixed sui=
cide pact that must only be changed with the true consent of all users. As =
step #1 they should have taken the Satoshi source code, stripped out everyt=
hing that isn't directly related to that core consensus protocol, and turne=
d it into an easy to use library. Only then should they have built a wallet=
/node implementation around that core, unchanging, protocol.

Where Amir Taaki and the rest of the Dark Wallet team go so very wrong is t=
hey don't understand that the Bitcoin specification is the consensus=
-critical part of the Satoshi source code. Instead they are pursuing a grou=
nd-up re-implementation, and like it or not, they're just not smart enough =
to get all the details right - nobody is. Because they haven't gotten the d=
etails right, no significant amount of hashing power is going to ever use t=
heir node implementation to mine with - what pool wants to lose thousands o=
f dollars of profit just because yet another libbitcoin consensus bug was f=
ound? Of course, with no-one using their code to mine, they have no politic=
al power - Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation's ability to control the core B=
itcoin protocol is entirely based on the fact that almost all the hashing p=
ower uses the source code at ht=
tps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin


On the other hand, if even just a quarter of the hashing power used the Dar=
k Wallet node implementation, and could trust it because the !@#$ thing act=
ually implemented the Satoshi protocol properly by using that protocol's so=
urce code, changing that protocol in fundemental ways would be far harder -=
 Dark Wallet would have a lot more genuine political weight. With hashing p=
ower using that implementation, they would be able to implement their own r=
ules for relaying transactions. For instance while much of the community co=
mplained violently about the 0.8.2 dust rule, which made it far harder to g=
et "dust" outputs mined, if the Dark Wallet team decided they didn't like t=
hat rule and had hashing power that trusted their node implementation[/i=
], they could make the rule irrelevant. They could even come up with a anyt=
hing-goes mechanism with no rules at all governing what transactions got re=
layed, and let individual miners make those decisions.

If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, y=
ou know what I'd do? I'd encourage ground-up alternate implementations know=
ing damn well that the kind of people dumb enough to work on them expecting=
 to create a viable competitor anytime soon aren't going to succeed. Every =
time anyone tried mining with one, I'd use my knowledge of all the ways the=
y are incompatible to fork them, making it clear they can't be trusted for =
mining. Then I'd go a step further and "for the good of Bitcoin" create a p=
rocess by which regular soft-forks and hard-forks happened so that Bitcoin =
can be "improved" in various ways, maybe every six months. Of course, I'd i=
nvolve those alternate implementations in some IETF-like standards process =
for show, but all I would have to do to keep them marginalized and the majo=
rity of hashing power using the approved official implementation is slip th=
e odd consensus bug into their code; remember how it was recently leaked th=
at the NSA spends $250 million a year on efforts to insert flaws into encry=
ption standards and commercial products. With changes every six months the =
alts will never keep up. Having accomplished political control, the next st=
ep is pushing the development of the Bitcoin core protocol in ways that fur=
ther my goals, such as scalability solutions that at best allow for auditin=
g, rather waiting until protocols are developed, tested, and accepted by th=
e community that support fully decentralized mining.

Dark Wallet has the opportunity to make the very idea of the "core" Bitcoin=
 dev team irrelevant. But sadly Amir's lot seem to understand the art of PR=
 a lot better than the political science of decentralized consensus systems.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000046b70994c073df60d4c0926a6d6c7864f3a036fa98718cd6f
gpg: Signature made Sun 03 Nov 2013 01:42:00 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
Excellent observations with dark wallet. I like the concept of the "political
science of crypto-currencies"

But don't burn any bridges please. The dark wallet people are writing real
code, you are not. If you can nudge them in the right technical directions you
could do a lot of good.
gpg: Signature made Wed 13 Nov 2013 07:41:32 PM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"

gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:53:32AM +0000, John Dillon wrote:

You sound more pissed off than usual...

You realize this DoS attack stuff has ignited some pretty serious debate
and desperate work to get things fixed right?

Letting things cool down a bit would help - best not to draw more attack
attention for a bit you know.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Gavin Andresen
> <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Peter said:
> > "In any case given that SPV peers don't contribute back to the network
> > they should obviously be heavily deprioritized and served only with
> > whatever resources a node has spare."
> >
> > This seems very much like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" solution.
> >
> > SPV peers are INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT to the growth of Bitcoin; much more
> > important than nodes that have the bandwidth and disk I/O capability of
> > being a full node.  Bitcoin will be just fine if there are never more than
> > 10,000 big, beefy, full nodes forming the backbone of the network, but will
> > be NOTHING if we don't support tens of millions of lightweight SPV devices.
> >
> > Ok, that's an exaggeration, Bitcoin would be just fine in an Electrum model
> > where tens of millions of lightweight devices rely 100% on a full node to
> > operate. But I would prefer the more decentralized, less-trust-required SPV
> > model.
>
> So tell us how is your "vision" of 10,000 big beefy full nodes with SPV peers
> any different from the Electrum model? These days Electrum clients have block
> headers and verify that transactions have merkle paths to the block headers.
> The only difference I see is that SPV uses bloom filtering and Electrum can
> query by transaction. But Mike wants to add querying by transaction to full
> nodes anyway, and one of the purported advantages of this UTXO proof stuff is
> that you can query servers for UTXO's by address, so I see no difference at
> all. A patch to do bloom filtering on Electrum would be amusing to me.
>
> Here you have Peter talking about clever ways to actually get decentralization
> by having SPV peers donate back to the network with spare bandwidth, like
> relaying blocks, not to mention his partial UTXO set ideas, and you completely
> ignore that. But I guess that would raise ugly questions when people realize
> they can't now contribute back to Bitcoin, because the blocksize is a gigabyte
> of microtransactions... It may also raise ugly questions with regulators that
> may find the idea of "full node == data chokepoint == regulatory chokepoint" an
> attractive notion. Why are there not any competent people other than Peter who
> really have the guts to bring up these proposals? I've little luck getting
> proof-of-concepts built for money anyway. Maybe we just have a darth of smart
> competent people in this space.
>
> You do a good job of signaling your priorities Gavin. The payment protocol
> includes no notion that you may want to pay anyone but a SSL certified
> merchant. Yes I know the crypto can be upgraded, but it says volumes that you
> pushed for that first, without even the slightest token effort to allow
> individuals to participate in any way. Sad given you have made things *less*
> secure because there is no safe way to get money *into* my wallet with the
> payment protocol, but could have been.
>
> Tell me, when my decentralization pull-req is voted on, which way are you
> planning on voting?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSEYg/AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPQBIH/A2cef0NDzu72CY0+N1HdPO+
> fdixwncAg1ok6YdJj5WALjHbkhJ+QRVEZoRr6rHPxxxTywI+HiPN1oaopIrq3StP
> bNpvouaWXLyw6xHMrMYefVOluHNZg3lu1akLdGuYA7rDHLwP/RhlF1FFzXSxKFsp
> ANcw4WW7U5r5nfBHYc/a9xo8S6THI7Nv2NDW6WaRQO4X9sbSKSdwanoe75CLsRzE
> E2cPNvwG4WA/MUgkl3Ao6dMsEPPa8dJK98LaS4BE/m9iFWQiV8t35/FQ0GAFQoJo
> PQUs8aAWiI0caAxI0vddxKQ+YlwPw2m1QH6h19wUO7+KLKOtxMFmWoDu/OLdTRM=
> =IfkA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
gpg: Signature made Mon 19 Aug 2013 03:14:26 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 4096-bit RSA key, ID 0753963A, created 2013-07-03
      "w@grabhive.com <w@grabhive.com>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
   boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1B46601-BBCC-40F3-8BD0-722BD938097E";
   protocol="application/pgp-signature";
   micalg=pgp-sha1


--Apple-Mail=_A1B46601-BBCC-40F3-8BD0-722BD938097E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
   charset=us-ascii

Well said, John.

-wendell

grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411

On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:53 AM, John Dillon wrote:

> So tell us how is your "vision" of 10,000 big beefy full nodes with =
SPV peers
> any different from the Electrum model? These days Electrum clients =
have block
> headers and verify that transactions have merkle paths to the block =
headers.
> The only difference I see is that SPV uses bloom filtering and =
Electrum can
> query by transaction. But Mike wants to add querying by transaction to =
full
> nodes anyway, and one of the purported advantages of this UTXO proof =
stuff is
> that you can query servers for UTXO's by address, so I see no =
difference at
> all. A patch to do bloom filtering on Electrum would be amusing to me.
>=20
> Here you have Peter talking about clever ways to actually get =
decentralization
> by having SPV peers donate back to the network with spare bandwidth, =
like
> relaying blocks, not to mention his partial UTXO set ideas, and you =
completely
> ignore that. But I guess that would raise ugly questions when people =
realize
> they can't now contribute back to Bitcoin, because the blocksize is a =
gigabyte
> of microtransactions... It may also raise ugly questions with =
regulators that
> may find the idea of "full node =3D=3D data chokepoint =3D=3D =
regulatory chokepoint" an
> attractive notion. Why are there not any competent people other than =
Peter who
> really have the guts to bring up these proposals? I've little luck =
getting
> proof-of-concepts built for money anyway. Maybe we just have a darth =
of smart
> competent people in this space.
>=20
> You do a good job of signaling your priorities Gavin. The payment =
protocol
> includes no notion that you may want to pay anyone but a SSL certified
> merchant. Yes I know the crypto can be upgraded, but it says volumes =
that you
> pushed for that first, without even the slightest token effort to =
allow
> individuals to participate in any way. Sad given you have made things =
*less*
> secure because there is no safe way to get money *into* my wallet with =
the
> payment protocol, but could have been.
>=20
> Tell me, when my decentralization pull-req is voted on, which way are =
you
> planning on voting?


--Apple-Mail=_A1B46601-BBCC-40F3-8BD0-722BD938097E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
   filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
   name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSEkb7AAoJECAN2ykHU5Y660IQAID2HES1qjA/MBUvkK2pLXV1
LYdXMxysz+TB5JHUOeMVfc5Dhw+bPH4my/IeyQI7zrupqAIffkTplJZq0+Cazj4x
aPcH8DZfdUrX5rUeK0uzl7JdbWj6mf5jbw/cKRUD87+Hv6lprFJ7z6qBK8YywqdQ
rSo+Oy4oLomuhfjpPOrFVGxdvIgvFSQ55bmVCH9qUna495G7pN7et6uO0H3Ty8i0
dRAGs3vukm2ZqNInpuS2mmKA9IUzbjXNQIox/MP9vPmjH2X3GLWOKhjLsqMpJoo5
2Nz32wmaw1CRvISSsBDf1FYbDdJ3vS9n9dgEot5atKoHkxMVIpJ081FWz2cQBKKM
n7tya1TBAngOI8KwQqj6o/V3lDJBau4YgsSlosBZvINff6qKxI+Qd0W3H7sbYvoW
BnRdHWrEeHTgnqiREwmiZrz2ziij09if59Cmai/crl+wbb5DXjRqf69U2rMmrISR
OzczRa3nULLmezq+Km/oLIUX+qye6BRb/DPiAxkCbz2YHsrn21eZLGoKhs1iA/LV
8hZMidGOF8lsoUV+19CBRz/70Ox56MjvbuVBCVLWxJxLo2qen/9xQL8nlzwMYV/u
DOKpz+IcNivEwRFl1vIvfgxgKCxRlOOj3s5ykJW6RTvFE6FbSsypvKkLTVpbMZIG
5mp7at7boB0c3meObznG
=N8do
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_A1B46601-BBCC-40F3-8BD0-722BD938097E--

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
Get in touch with me before you decide to offer a reward or anything for
actually making an attack happen... You have the support of a core dev
FWIW, I'm sure you can guess who. Warren of Litecoin says he believes
you as well, and asks you try the attack on a smaller alt-coin. Tongue

Strategy would be good here, especially because the same attack(s) can
be used to take down the whole network too, but we more want to show how
SPV specifically is bad. Implementing a darknet to resist network-wide
attack is easily done, and it looks like doing peer prioritization will
help for those for whome darknets aren't a good option. Some testing of
the latter prior to an attack would be good.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000062f418c8caf7a1e2058f4e2aa9a045ef807ef569faf92528c5
gpg: Signature made Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:49:33 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 0FBEF185, created 2012-04-25
      "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 38254DA8, created 2012-05-31
      "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:05:26PM +0000, John Dillon wrote:

Speaking of, check out this tx:
8e8b01b99048ee68bfe378dd7eb7fc8c1d5b1864aa74a76f4dc97ed38fbfe15e

Yup, we don't check that the dummy value is OP_0 at all...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> As you all know keeping the size of the UTXO set small is critical, and more
> recently we've also had problems with distasteful data being added to the UTXO
> set. (http://garzikrants.blogspot.se/2013_04_01_archive.html) Gregory Maxwell
> has an excellent solution to the distasteful data problem in the form of P2SH^2
> (http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel/1996) and Peter Todd
> pointed out how we can implement it with the existing P2SH form. We're also
> going to be implementing some kind of OP_RETURN <data> soon which handles the
> timestamping and similar use-cases, again without UTXO impact.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000089969afa63b9c652aa7ca624f6082f46e1c3399bd669051ce9
gpg: Signature made Sun 21 Jul 2013 10:12:59 AM GMT using RSA key ID A5F091FB
gpg: Good signature from "Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>"
gpg:                 aka "[jpeg image of size 5220]"

gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 2636188F ...
gpg: anonymous recipient; trying secret key 38254DA8 ...
gpg: okay, we are the anonymous recipient.
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID F0F0B355, created 1999-11-27
      "Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>"
gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 00000000
Hi Gregory,

I apologise for my tardiness, but here is the 5.11BTC I promised for the
CoinJoin effort.

It is great news to see blockchain.info implement it! I used it myself. Smiley Are
you giving them a token reward? They are a for profit venture, but all the same
a thank you recognition of some kind seems worthwhile to me.

I note that Peter Wuille still hasn't PGP signed his address...

Yours,

1BDSZMaUvrbTjWsSgLA4XqYUK4dDzxREEV
KxG9HMgaaMQKWGnht7U1gZW1iWxxNQunTa78gMkvMYSEDHbvKFuS
gpg: Signature made Sat 26 Oct 2013 05:20:28 AM GMT using RSA key ID 2636188F
gpg: Good signature from "John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>"[/size][/quote]
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 02:06:12 AM
 #18

In short, If this material is supposed to be some of a devastating leak, it was a complete air-ball IMHO.

Looks like his computer was compromised, including his PGP key; those are all private emails.

In two instances people have tried to use webbugs on this forum, as well as the foundation forum, in discussions about blacklists - I took that as a sign that people are resorting to some pretty ugly tactics. This just confirmed my suspicions.

John had expressed concerns to me about the safety of himself and his family, which I guess I might as well quote given it is one of the leaked emails:

Quote
Just so you know this stuff about Tor has me worried... Please don't make this
public, but my day job involves intelligence, and I'm in a relatively high
position. You know, I went into the job years ago with very different thoughts
about it than I do now. The last, well, decade really has changed a lot of
minds in this field, in totally different ways. Myself I am on the side of
Snowden and Assange, but... lets just say when you have a family your
willingness to be a martyr diminishes. The same is true of many of my
colleagues. Hopefully my support for Bitcoin can help undo some of the damage
we've done, but I do have to be careful and it's tough to take all the
precautions I need to to be able to communicate. If it was found out that I was
involved with Bitcoin that way I have been, let's just say there would be
consequences...

So who knows, maybe this is more to do with him than anything else. Regardless I'm taking it as a sign that we need to be more careful about our computer security - though I dunno, I always had the impression that John was a very smart man who understood crypto and computer security well, yet he still got hacked.

jedunnigan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 279
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:46:41 AM
Last edit: November 17, 2013, 04:04:41 AM by jedunnigan
 #19

Wow, interesting revelations. I always knew the dev team was divided, but this runs a special sort of deep.

Very intrigued by the revelations about libbitcoin, always was concerned about that just didn't know why. They have the chance to turn the tides but it seems they are getting on the wrong train. That's a shame.

As a matter of fact, user BCB was caught tracking in the same thread jdillon was posting in, so there is your first nugget.

Jdillon a fed with something to hide, this could be very bad for you. Please be safe.
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:54:38 AM
 #20

Very intrigued by the revelations about libbitcoin, always was concerned about that just didn't know why. They have the chance to turn the tides but it seems they are getting on the wrong train. That's a shame.

That text about libbitcoin was posted by myself on the foundation forums; I just thought jdillon would find it interesting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!