>>     Is mining relevant here?

>>     On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Thomas Hartman
>>     <thomas@??? <mailto:thomas@standardcrypto.com>> 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@??? <mailto:metatrongone@gmail.com>> 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@???
>>         <mailto:caedes@sindominio.net>> 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