From: Wendell <w@grabhive•com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Simple contacts exchange (was: Social network integration (brainstorm))
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:05:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <82E79EB0-49D6-492A-AE4A-6A786C7B0AAA@grabhive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AFD93558-684C-497C-ADAF-D031095EC2CE@gmail.com>
Luke pointed out that we should not be inserting extraneous data into the blockchain, so this sounds like the best option, Eric.
I'm under the impression that a Bitcoin user Alice cannot see the actual public key of Bitcoin user Bob, so if we had Hive store metadata on a server relating to a given transaction ID, I would not be able to use those public keys key to encrypt. Is this a misunderstanding or is it correct?
Assuming it is correct, the best that I could come up with was storing the transaction ID with a _fresh_ public key on a server, each time a transfer is made. Altogether it looks like this:
- Alice generates a new keypair & revocation certificate for the transaction
- Alice makes a Bitcoin transaction to Bob
- Alice sends the transaction ID plus the new public key to server
- Bob receives the Bitcoin transaction
- Bob generates a new keypair & revocation certificate
- Bob does a transaction ID lookup on the server, receives Alice's public key, sends his own new one
- Bob encrypts his user metadata against Alice's new key
- Alice downloads and decrypts Bob's metadata
- Alice uploads her revocation certificate
- Alice uploads her own metadata
- Bob downloads Alice's metadata
- Bob uploads his revocation certificate
- (Server removes all keys with revocation certificates)
I presume going the extra mile to generate new keys for each transaction is helpful for privacy?
The above seems rather inelegant to me. I really don't like that clients (wallets) are going to be beating down the server all the time checking for keys, or that there is a possibility of a desynchronization so severe that the user receives the data much too late for it to be useful. But, I suppose it can work.
Another thing I'm considering is Alice/Bob validating each other. I suppose we should include some kind of code that we encourage people to read to each other over the phone or some other medium, to ensure that "it really is Alice", before (for example) returning money to a very legit-looking personage.
Any other thoughts? I would love to do this without using any servers at all ("serverless keyserver", anyone?), but I am not quite sure how.
-wendell
grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411
On Sep 7, 2013, at 12:47 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Why not just use the transaction hash itself for the lookup? Also, presumably you'd want to encrypt the data so that only the recipient of the transaction can do this lookup.
>
> -Eric
>
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Wendell <w@grabhive•com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're thinking about ways of automatically exchanging contact details between wallets, in order to encourage the proliferation of identifiable names and photos rather than long and hard-to-verify addresses.
>>
>> The simplest version goes like this:
>>
>> 2 BTC Bitcoin is sent to someone, and a data lookup hash is inserted into the transaction. When it arrives on the other end, it is indeed looked up, and instead of being presented with a dialogue that says "you received 2 BTC from 13Y94z43Nbbb6wevRyk82CeDoYQ5S28zmA", it's "You received 2 BTC from Frank Jones" including a nice photo.
>>
>> Now. We can simply delete this data in reference to the transaction ID after it happens (or delete it after a time), but is there any more decentralized way to do it? I would prefer us to run no dedicated servers that would ever put us in a position of being coerced into giving data, or otherwise altering our system to store it.
>>
>> Any thoughts about this?
>>
>> -wendell
>>
>> grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
>> Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
>> and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step
>> tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk_______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-16 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-06 15:07 Wendell
2013-09-06 22:47 ` Eric Lombrozo
2013-09-16 14:05 ` Wendell [this message]
2013-09-17 9:30 ` Wendell
2013-09-17 10:03 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-17 12:05 ` Wendell
2013-09-17 12:36 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-07 21:44 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-09 7:26 ` Wendell
2013-09-09 11:43 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=82E79EB0-49D6-492A-AE4A-6A786C7B0AAA@grabhive.com \
--to=w@grabhive$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=elombrozo@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox