<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1kgq6znq9pm0f9yshzcysy6yywcxttqkt3q2unzjhpnfsq3q2mjjqmfn3aj

Profile Code

nprofile1qqstyqdpfszsah5jjgt3vzgzdzz8vr94st9cs9wf3ftse5cqgs9defqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds8nhk2q

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:25:47 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-09-15
📝 Original message:‎The reason it is in fact wanking is because pgp tried to solve a problem that can't be solved.
It tried to provide distributed trust to a system of identity, while still depending on the local government (i.e centralized) for the upstream ID...
It's a marriage that has no benefit.
What we really want is (decentralized) identity management that allows me to create a new anonymous ID and use that as something more secure than trusting a behavior pattern to proof it's me.
Sent on the go. Excuse the brevity.
Original Message
From: Brian Hoffman
Sent: 15:35 mandag 15. september 2014
To: Jeff Garzik
Cc: Thomas Zander; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Does anyone have anything at all signed by Satoshi's PGP key?
I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but to dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle.
The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because your risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go see if you can get any kind of governmental clearance of credential without in-person vetting. Ask them if they accept your behavioral signature.
I know there is a lot of PGP hating these days but this comment doesn't necessarily apply to every situation.
> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander <thomas at thomaszander.se> wrote:
>> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not trust or sign
>> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without seeing that
>> person in real life, verifying their identity etc.
>
> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless and
> stupid geek wanking.
>
> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant. We know how
> Satoshi coded and wrote. It was the online Satoshi with which we
> interacted. The online Satoshi's PGP signature would be fine...
> assuming he established a pattern of use.
>
> As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key signed
> by the online entity known as "sipa." At a bitcoin conf I met a
> person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claimed to be sipa,
> but that could have been an actor. Absent a laborious and boring
> signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a supercomputing
> cluster of 500 gnomes.
>
> The point is, the "online entity known as Satoshi" is the relevant
> fingerprint. That is easily established without any in-person
> meetings.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want excitement?
> Manually upgrade your production database.
> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development