rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-03-21 📝 Original message:Maybe so, but given the relatively minor advantages of ECC certs I can see why a CA might not want to take any risks. They are sitting ducks for patent trolls. I think ECC will still happen, though we end up back into NSA fear territory thanks to the stupid way secp256r1 was defined. *Hopefully* there's no back door. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote: > According to Bernstein it's patent FUD (expired, ancient and solid prior > art). > > http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2013-August/005126.html > > Adam > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:33:57PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Oh, one other reason I found - apparently RIM, at least in the past, >> has been telling CA's that they need to pay mad bux for the Certicom >> ECC patents. So that's another reason why most certs are still using >> RSA. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140321/802d380b/attachment.html>