Author: MⒶrtin HⒶboⓋštiak 2015-02-05 23:22:47
Published on: 2015-02-05T23:22:47+00:00
The context is a discussion about different ideas and opinions related to Bitcoin transactions. The first opinion shared is that having BT as an alternative is a good idea, but it must be secure enough, with signed BIP70 being a viable option. However, two issues are mentioned regarding BIP70: key revocations and MITM attacks by governments. Broadcasting faces is deemed a bad idea, and comparing addresses seems complicated. One suggestion is to display the hash as a unique picture or long phrase. Another idea is to store the public key of merchant after successful transaction as a compromise. In response to Eric Voskuil's comment, Paul Puey explains how BLE broadcast requests work for Bitcoin transactions, which reveals only the fact that someone within 100m is requesting Bitcoin at a certain address. It does not reveal who they are, as the name is optional and possibly just a handle of the user. The issue of BLE range is discussed, with its advertised range being over 100m, and in case of mass surveillance, this range could be extended dramatically by the reviewer. However, Mike Hearn points out that Bluetooth cannot enable mass surveillance as it barely goes through air, let alone walls. The discussion then shifts to the idea of tapping two phones together to make payments instead of scanning QR codes, where NFC is suggested as a possible solution. However, Roy Badami raises concerns about the possibility of producing devices with longer ranges than expected even with NFC. He also asks about the idea of tapping two devices together and comparing the timing of the tap to make spoofing a transaction harder. There is no clear answer to this question.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T16:29:57.639187+00:00