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...
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.
)
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.
