Short answer no, long answer barely.
Node distribution of miners has some impact on centralization of power,
which has implications for state and regulatory capture of bitcoin. And in
the long run DW may want to lobby the miners to prioritize certain types of
transactions.
In the short run I think we don't need to think about mining.
On Dec 22, 2013 10:02 PM, "Metatron YHVH" <metatrongone@???> wrote:
> Is mining relevant here?
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Thomas Hartman <thomas@???
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, at least you posted some budget and a spec.
>>
>> You still hijacked the thread (3 threads) though. If you would at
>> least start a new thread, it would be somewhat more socially
>> acceptable.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Metatron YHVH <metatrongone@???>
>> wrote:
>> > Bitcoins and RFID currency. I've got 7,692 USD to anyone who prove they
>> are
>> > different.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, caedes <caedes@???> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> On 19/12/13 18:23, Mike Belshe wrote:
>> >> > Hey Peter -
>> >> >
>> >> > I think this is a super list. A couple of thoughts:
>> >> >
>> >> > a) In the section on multi-sig and multi-factor, I think we can split
>> >> > these apart. Multi-factor user authentication is very valuable and
>> not
>> >> > the same as multi-factor signing, which is a second level of
>> >> > complexity. The multi-factor auth can be off-blockchain, e.g.
>> >> > authenticating with SMS message to your phone or Google Authenticator
>> >> > challenge. Given the state of malware today, I personally would
>> >> > propose two requirements:
>> >> > 1) wallets SHOULD use multi-factor authentication before
>> >> > authorizing access to a wallet (e.g. view balances, addresses,
>> >> > transactions, etc)
>> >> > 2) wallets MUST use multi-factor auth before signing a
>> >> > transaction. [note: I recognize that MUST might be too aggressive
>> >> > right now, but I wouldn't use a wallet without it. this can also be
>> >> > impractical for server-side wallets]
>> >>
>> >> Using multi-sig for multi-factor so the wallet needs to get some
>> >> additional signatures (or even the keys can be somewhere else) can make
>> >> 2factor more orthogonal to the whole thing specially since we need to
>> >> support multisig spending, and other partial transaction fullfilling.
>> >>
>> >> We can still account for other 2fa schemes, but i'm thinking more of
>> >> exploiting key signing itself and maybe bip32 wallet structure.
>> >>
>> >> I agee on uour requirements, but also think they might be too harsh for
>> >> some uses I would require them myself so I could feel safe with my
>> wallet.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > b) Multi-factor signing (e.g. P2SH) may be too early to really
>> define.
>> >> > But here are some issues which have come up from my own personal
>> >> > development experience:
>> >> > - Wallets SHOULD NOT create two keys on a single host or device
>> >> > - Wallets SHOULD provide a way to import external public keys
>> >> > which can be used as part of a P2SH address
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Agree on these ones. Public keys could be imported through extended
>> >> public keys too if we agree to using those.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Slightly off topic: For P2SH, address creation requires the public
>> >> > key, not the public hash of an address. For me, this has made it
>> >> > difficult to import keys created through out-of-band sources. Most
>> >> > wallets/key generators/etc only provide the address and not the
>> public
>> >> > key, and this is a hinderance to easy P2SH creation off host. It
>> >> > would be great if there were a way to address this, but I don't know
>> >> > how.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We have to work on solutions... our aim is settle down on a way to
>> >> negotiate addresses and other parameters among identities, also key
>> >> importing can be supported to make these easier.
>> >>
>> >> cheers!
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > ॐMetatronॐ
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ॐMetatronॐ
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] [Bitcoin-development…
