Ramon Quesada - News 🌷

Yes it's amazing how things that I blogged about in 2016, 17 and 18 and that I filed a patent for in early 2016 are being developed by these guys as if they actually had an original idea

22. according to claim 16 to 21 any one of them method, including：
The electronic device indicates the information of the certainty key (DK) from key device request；
The key device is based on the message (M) and generates signature information (SM)；
The signature information (SM) is sent to the electronic device；
The signature information (SM) is confirmed on said electronic device；And
Retrieve the message (M), enabling determined for by the secret of the data deciphering at the electronic device.

Basically, claim 22 details the creation of a payment request sent between the card and the device where a change addresses generated. Please show me how this differs from anything in bitcoin or what they're doing

It on my blog from earlier, and I've talked about this in conferences. In fact, one of the early BCH conferences included where I talked about this and encourage developers to build such a solution - what they are of course forgetting is that it only applies to BSV without licensing

The thing people need to understand is that I have patent filed anything I have a talk about. We also use the nondisclosure period and push publication out at least 18 months and sometimes two years. This is why they see the 2017 date. The priority date 2016 is what actually matters.

It's funny how when they do something, such as using a smartcard and a pos device, that is innovative and yet when I did it, it's clearly obvious.

Of course it's obvious now, I've spent two years talking about the idea, blogged about it, done conferences were talked about it and of patented it. Once it becomes commonplace, it becomes obvious

So, yes when I did it it was called innovation and when he did it it's called copying

"Funny how he just assumes how my idea works but actually has no idea. He didn‘t patent anything."

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether he likes what I've said. He should learn how to read and do patent searches not only on this one but the others and is can have lots of fun in the future. I don't mind, I'm happy for him to develop code. If it's any good, you can pay licensing fees

Well, if you look at his paper, he is using parts of the SPV patent as well...

"A UTXO indexer service, which enables a lookup of Payee’s current UTXO given their public key."

That is also from a GRANTED patent

"Payer generates a random 256-bit secret and stores it on the offline wallet device, along with a nonce which is set to MIN_INT."

That is the Message M

"2. The offline wallet signs the following hash using its secret and sends the signature to Payee, along with the wallet’s public key and nonce:
sha256(hash160(payeePk)paymentAmountnewNonce)"

That is the patent - the deterministic key

His version is also insecure and misses several aspects to make it not vulnerable to MiTM attacks....

2.3.1 Contract state machine

And that is in my DFA patent

And, he needs to read:
https://theintercept.com/document/2015/03/10/tpm-vulnerabilities-power-analysis-exposed-exploit-bitlocker/

His implementation is flawed

And, I am not Holy....

A smart card only needs to sign a value, a hash. The phone, even a low power one, can create the TX. The issue in the implementation is that you can MiTM the hash and many other attacks. It is not well though out.

CSW
Nov 22, 2019
http s://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1573548331486400?thread_ts=1573547754.484800&cid=C5131HKFX

29 views@RamonQuesada 🌷, edited 02:50