Topic: Dark Wallet Certification - page 2. (Read 5572 times)
Is this free?
Someone's name needs to change. I like the idea of a standard vetted and approved by the community, but conflating the unSYSTEM project and the certification names is misleading and a bit odd.
I'm going to try to make it for at least a couple days. Being this is such a long running meeting, is there any sort of agenda being drawn up?
If you want to build a single product called "Dark Wallet" under a specific umbrella, more power to you Amir. That said, there's a pretty good reason to split certification, product and organization: Developers may not agree with the politics (or anti-politics) of the organization, but still appreciate the features. Being monolithic in that respect will likely just end up alienating a lot of legitimate use cases.
Maybe Dark Wallet can be one project, but unSYSTEM (the organisation) can have a set of basic principles for wallet developers about what we are working for, some practical advice and guidelines about doing certain things. They are voluntary but if you want to be part of the community, well you should be respecting and working for the people. It'd be cool to have other projects come join unSYSTEM and help establish a support network for Bitcoin projects and cool initiatives.
Piggybacking on gmaxwell's idea, perhaps we can come up with a list of DarkWallet expectations and keep a running list of who's implemented what, much like a feature compatibility matrix.
Maybe just surfacing the gaps in a very public way (wikis, websites, etc.) will help to create more awareness and the community will naturally gravitate towards those that implement a minimum feature set to ensure privacy, security, and usability.
Maybe just surfacing the gaps in a very public way (wikis, websites, etc.) will help to create more awareness and the community will naturally gravitate towards those that implement a minimum feature set to ensure privacy, security, and usability.
I've been thinking some time that it would be good to have a certification— or more than one— for wallets, as I've been pretty disappointed by some of the feature gaps in some of the popular tools, especially in areas related to privacy.
It might be good to have a list of criteria that a wallet should meet, with each one traceable to ensuring the tool preserves the users privacy, security, and autonomy. I think that in some cases the criteria should mandate specific techniques, while in other cases it should just mandate the effect.
E.g. instead of requiring it to use CoinJoin (or any specific implementation), instead it could be that it make it convenient and inexpensive to transact in a way which provides at least plausible deny-ability about the common ownership of inputs or the specific sources/destinations of payments.
It might be good to have a list of criteria that a wallet should meet, with each one traceable to ensuring the tool preserves the users privacy, security, and autonomy. I think that in some cases the criteria should mandate specific techniques, while in other cases it should just mandate the effect.
E.g. instead of requiring it to use CoinJoin (or any specific implementation), instead it could be that it make it convenient and inexpensive to transact in a way which provides at least plausible deny-ability about the common ownership of inputs or the specific sources/destinations of payments.
Agreed.
About the non-requirement, why not just have it target some specific goals and specific technologies/implementations under the "Dark Wallet" certification, and simply update the standard as better methods are discovered? That does nothing to stop other certifications from coming into being, after all.
I've been thinking some time that it would be good to have a certification— or more than one— for wallets, as I've been pretty disappointed by some of the feature gaps in some of the popular tools, especially in areas related to privacy.
It might be good to have a list of criteria that a wallet should meet, with each one traceable to ensuring the tool preserves the users privacy, security, and autonomy. I think that in some cases the criteria should mandate specific techniques, while in other cases it should just mandate the effect.
E.g. instead of requiring it to use CoinJoin (or any specific implementation), instead it could be that it make it convenient and inexpensive to transact in a way which provides at least plausible deny-ability about the common ownership of inputs or the specific sources/destinations of payments.
It might be good to have a list of criteria that a wallet should meet, with each one traceable to ensuring the tool preserves the users privacy, security, and autonomy. I think that in some cases the criteria should mandate specific techniques, while in other cases it should just mandate the effect.
E.g. instead of requiring it to use CoinJoin (or any specific implementation), instead it could be that it make it convenient and inexpensive to transact in a way which provides at least plausible deny-ability about the common ownership of inputs or the specific sources/destinations of payments.
Ref: Let There Be Dark!
Greetings from Bitcoin Singapore!
Hive will be attending unSYSTEM's DarkWallet meeting in Milan on the week of the 24th. We propose that the outcome of this meeting be, at minimum, the establishment of a v1 "Dark Wallet Certification", a set of best-practice guidelines for wallets focused on decentralization and anonymity.
This topic is has been opened in order to get the community thinking about what exactly a "Dark Wallet" should be: We assume the use of Tor, CoinJoin, CoinSwap and other such developments. We assume the lack of centralized services wherever possible. We presume that we can evolve ideas about authentication (see the work of John Light, Joe Casico etc)... Still, our ignorance is vast and we would like to come armed at this meeting, with your feedback.
What ideas or thoughts do you all have?
Greetings from Bitcoin Singapore!
Hive will be attending unSYSTEM's DarkWallet meeting in Milan on the week of the 24th. We propose that the outcome of this meeting be, at minimum, the establishment of a v1 "Dark Wallet Certification", a set of best-practice guidelines for wallets focused on decentralization and anonymity.
This topic is has been opened in order to get the community thinking about what exactly a "Dark Wallet" should be: We assume the use of Tor, CoinJoin, CoinSwap and other such developments. We assume the lack of centralized services wherever possible. We presume that we can evolve ideas about authentication (see the work of John Light, Joe Casico etc)... Still, our ignorance is vast and we would like to come armed at this meeting, with your feedback.
What ideas or thoughts do you all have?
Jump to: