Re: [openpgp] Proposal for a separable ring signature scheme compatible with RSA, DSA, and ECDSA keys

Ben Laurie <ben@links.org> Mon, 17 March 2014 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <benlaurie@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAD01A03D7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZAxRTjgWfC8V for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22e.google.com (mail-qc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17611A03C8 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x13so5668653qcv.33 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FLkg4F+UxoW5IyVBKaAQq4Cfc0z6lAvIw30P6OKbZSQ=; b=TZWONCG/KO+7oHCDHZG5xjw2I+g0ujNqJrXHIJSdX1/XutEd9p/g3ttXCWQ8MiC2+8 uDIX1pfBYNiJ5C1spFzl1KViRsPoMSfwFqke4wbNYckV2bNA8pTQvGj7JiVUhn0eeUi0 XQWf9/LjcmA9uqjpr2XdIQh1KCQ/ZX5O6lMaoXsD+h+5rZM5LtYvfiJu5hCkupcpYK3/ K8y+KZXbMGZzfAeimlw8AbyrjDOCwKo2jzeOVte6cm42ucabVCKJINMyOTFBgKtJqpkv M2BJhcZ6Wh/5gsHew344M5WJR2A0gxvcVVes2EUlmCKhd/3gPdt4tQ0uK5CwFxLcdrUh iHww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.147.77 with SMTP id k13mr27219013qav.64.1395053590812; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: benlaurie@gmail.com
Received: by 10.96.157.137 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87wqftuo55.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
References: <80674820640dbeb5ae81f81c67d87541@smtp.hushmail.com> <8761nh1549.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <a6d56e791a2c878f34369abc6f09b71d@smtp.hushmail.com> <87y50cybh3.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <53233BD4.4020804@fifthhorseman.net> <87lhwcy93w.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <CAG5KPzxa=HR9LZ6UfnZhMqUmrEF28stmpHi2psAH0amewf-5Cg@mail.gmail.com> <87iordwakp.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <CAG5KPzzuouEVqPd_AWey9r7n=+dDBVRkAPPfE0WfObLsR=V6Wg@mail.gmail.com> <87wqftuo55.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:53:10 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _M3ozQasHDtB66cfadSumzSV0wk
Message-ID: <CAG5KPzzpu8BsUx7KFGpyBg8AaCkC8Sz+PGZty5y8_Gh+aSXt4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <ben@links.org>
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/EVEneom9BJ-wvaNTuFBHHn60Lbg
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org, Vincent Yu <v@v-yu.com>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Proposal for a separable ring signature scheme compatible with RSA, DSA, and ECDSA keys
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:53:20 -0000

On 17 March 2014 10:15, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:43, ben@links.org said:
>
>>>> make sure I only use the new s/w for ring signatures. Then probability
>>>> says its not me, according to you.
>>>
>>> Right, you would decrease the probability that you created it.
>>
>> Clearly not.
>
> I concur and you then disagree?

The probability I created it is 100%, right? That's exactly my point.

However, you propose a calculation that makes it _less_ likely that I
created than others did. Clearly this calculation is wrong.