Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess the sense of humor. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy wrote: > Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what > you're talking about and take you seriously. > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation : > > Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and > key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric > cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a > different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I > should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a > few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to > not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but > enough with the sarcasm. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol wrote: > >> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like >> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as >> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you >> were a bot spamming the list. >> >> >> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? >> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what >> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have >> lost the war to our new centralized overlord? >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation >> cryptography in that aspect: >> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs >> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. >> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer >> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all >> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a >> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a >> repository and call it a day. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a >>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in >>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an >>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the >>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes >>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once >>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints >>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus >>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I >>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, >>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to >>> working on technological implementation. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be >>>> very good. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -Yancy >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> … >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >