Bitcoin Core Development Status Report #2

Hm, I am Not Happy about a feature of the new protocol. It's unfortunate that -- although I can hear the gears of politics turning in the document -- the details of the argument that spawned it are not laid out there for me to read.<p>In this day and age, using X.509 for something like this is ... pretty bad. The bitcoin community elsewhere has standardized on PGP, and with very good reason; X.509 is a well-known clusterfuck.<p>I understand wanting to include an X.509 option anyway, if the point is not to improve usability by the bitcoin community, but rather by people who aren't already in it. But I do not think the lack of a PGP option is excusable, and I do not wish to see the protocol succeed in its current form for that reason. (I can't imagine a significant fraction of the bitcoin community will want it to succeed in this form either.)

I jumped into that gist hoping to build a prototype for Verifone VeriX.<p>But unfortunately, this protocol cannot be used in PoS terminals, they are 32 bits and I see no reason why that would change before those kind of terminals just disappear.<p>We need something smarter than uint64.<p>Edit: I really think they need to read about solutions that already exists for banking &#38; payment communications. They are somewhat compatible with bitcoin.

very happy to hear that they are taking Zombie attack into consideration, I am constantly amazed by the number of companies that do not factor in this potential threat.