{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-03-21\n📝 Original message:Maybe so, but given the relatively minor advantages of ECC certs I can see\nwhy a CA might not want to take any risks. They are sitting ducks for\npatent trolls.\n\nI think ECC will still happen, though we end up back into NSA fear\nterritory thanks to the stupid way secp256r1 was defined. *Hopefully* there's\nno back door.\n\n\nOn Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e According to Bernstein it's patent FUD (expired, ancient and solid prior\n\u003e art).\n\u003e\n\u003e http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2013-August/005126.html\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:33:57PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e   Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in the past,\n\u003e\u003e   has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the Certicom\n\u003e\u003e   ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still using\n\u003e\u003e   RSA.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140321/802d380b/attachment.html\u003e"}