summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorChristian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>2011-12-13 12:42:17 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2011-12-13 11:43:16 +0000
commit446e942b4aa2a1cf111322a57c1540687119d6db (patch)
treed48f56c5d8cab52db64d9e612dbce03cd05a72bd
parenta3fdb654d7ec5004039fcf173889124d5e5918fe (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-446e942b4aa2a1cf111322a57c1540687119d6db.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-446e942b4aa2a1cf111322a57c1540687119d6db.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
-rw-r--r--8c/1bddd54b6f2396e158ac91cdea24e0e5f868d2259
1 files changed, 259 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/8c/1bddd54b6f2396e158ac91cdea24e0e5f868d2 b/8c/1bddd54b6f2396e158ac91cdea24e0e5f868d2
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4bc5810d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/8c/1bddd54b6f2396e158ac91cdea24e0e5f868d2
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <decker.christian@gmail.com>) id 1RaQlQ-0008W7-W2
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:43:16 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com;
+Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
+ by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1RaQlM-0007V9-OT
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:43:16 +0000
+Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so12536269wgb.10
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:43:06 -0800 (PST)
+Received: by 10.216.49.1 with SMTP id w1mr72322web.29.1323776586555; Tue, 13
+ Dec 2011 03:43:06 -0800 (PST)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Received: by 10.227.152.10 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:42:17 -0800 (PST)
+In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1oPaqAT+LCfrAXO9WBz+oC2uvbP=5vx2+DX2P0qFusgA@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
+ <CAGQP0AGvq603oshSGiP79A+gqDqW_hHG+qZjaZccCmo+gd3W2A@mail.gmail.com>
+ <201112121841.39864.luke@dashjr.org>
+ <CAGQP0AGBKKEqhaJZj-Rw400AjrVHE9_EMve=RWdqoaOaDsTgtw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAGQP0AGY32QP=rXyGftb5NbHA7fhcCne7W=pt5+onXp1Jbm98Q@mail.gmail.com>
+ <1323736946.58149.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
+ <CANEZrP1oPaqAT+LCfrAXO9WBz+oC2uvbP=5vx2+DX2P0qFusgA@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
+Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:42:17 +0100
+Message-ID: <CALxbBHUgCOVMRxtnsmC2W-MaYfeDSzaftWMCCgcWsMBdZfzPQg@mail.gmail.com>
+To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f27b943422b804b3f7c18a
+X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
+ sender-domain
+ 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (decker.christian[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
+ author's domain
+ 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
+ not necessarily valid
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
+X-Headers-End: 1RaQlM-0007V9-OT
+Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
+ <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:43:17 -0000
+
+--001485f27b943422b804b3f7c18a
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
+
+I think the scope of this BIP is not so well defined right now. We need a
+way for merchants to translate a human readable, and more importantly
+human-writeable, address into a bitcoin address. I agree with Mike that a
+fixed address is not the way to go, because addresses should be used once
+for a single transaction to be able to track payments.
+
+While firstbits sounds attractive at first, I think we can all agree that
+it just isn't feasible and would not allow per-transaction addresses. DNS
+sounds interesting for fixed addresses, but caching and propagation make it
+difficult to use for per-transaction addresses that are to be generated
+ad-hoc.
+
+HTTP(S) is the best option I think, merchants are probably using HTTP
+anyway for their shops. So something like
+http://merchant.com/btc/transaction/1234 sounds reasonable. But I think it
+should not be over-engineered, it should be a simple HTTP(S) request to a
+merchant specified URL that returns an ASCII document containing either a
+bitcoin: URI or simply the bitcoin address or even a 301 redirect. It's no
+use to start defining URL schemes, it should be left to the merchants to
+define how to structure them.
+
+This would allow a merchant to decide if he prefers per-transaction
+addresses, per-user transactions, fixed addresses or any combination.
+
+Regards,
+cdecker
+
+
+On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
+
+> I was in brmlab and wanted to pay 1 BTC for a Club Mate. They had on the
+>> wall a picture of their QR code and a bitcoin address. I don't own a mobile
+>> phone so the QR code is
+>> useless.
+>
+>
+> Fixed addresses like that are a temporary thing during Bitcoins maturation
+> period. They lead to merchants exposing data they probably don't realize
+> they're exposing, like their income, which is basically unacceptable for
+> any payment system.
+>
+> There's no point trying to optimize a case where:
+>
+> 1) You are in the minority (no phone?)
+> 2) The "perfect experience" leaks private data in such a way that would be
+> deemed a gross security breach by any serious payment processor.
+>
+> OK, some thoughts on the general proposal, from the POV of what it'd take
+> for a large deployment, like for every Gmail or every Facebook user. In
+> terms of ease of implementation it is ordered HTTPS/HTTP then DNS trailing
+> by a large margin. Big sites, even small sites, typically have high-speed
+> load balancing and demuxing already implemented for HTTP[S] and it's
+> usually easy to add new endpoints. The same is *not* true of DNS, and
+> whilst coding up a custom DNS server is possible it's definitely a worse
+> fit.
+>
+> FirstBits seems out of the question for the same privacy reasons as given
+> above. No banking system worth its salt would let everyone look up other
+> peoples income.
+>
+> The simplest approach would be to request a full public key with an HTTPS
+> request like
+>
+> foo@domain ->
+> https://domain/_bitcoin/getnewkey?user=foo&label=Payment%20from%20Bob
+>
+> If you then want to turn the resulting public key into an address before
+> creating a transaction you can obviously do that.
+>
+> BTW the BIP is pretty hard to read. Your spec for the HTTPS proposal is a
+> big pile of source code. I think it's the same as above, but it's hard to
+> tell without more effort.
+>
+>
+> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+> Systems Optimization Self Assessment
+> Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and
+> improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization
+> Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/
+> _______________________________________________
+> Bitcoin-development mailing list
+> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
+>
+>
+
+--001485f27b943422b804b3f7c18a
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+I think the scope of this BIP is not so well defined right now. We need a w=
+ay for merchants to translate a human readable, and more importantly human-=
+writeable, address into a bitcoin address. I agree with Mike that a fixed a=
+ddress is not the way to go, because addresses should be used once for a si=
+ngle transaction to be able to track payments. <br>
+
+<br>While firstbits sounds attractive at first, I think we can all agree th=
+at it just isn&#39;t feasible and would not allow per-transaction addresses=
+. DNS sounds interesting for fixed addresses, but caching and propagation m=
+ake it difficult to use for per-transaction addresses that are to be genera=
+ted ad-hoc.<br>
+
+<br>HTTP(S) is the best option I think, merchants are probably using HTTP a=
+nyway for their shops. So something like <a href=3D"http://merchant.com/btc=
+/transaction/1234">http://merchant.com/btc/transaction/1234</a> sounds reas=
+onable. But I think it should not be over-engineered, it should be a simple=
+ HTTP(S) request to a merchant specified URL that returns an ASCII document=
+ containing either a bitcoin: URI or simply the bitcoin address or even a 3=
+01 redirect. It&#39;s no use to start defining URL schemes, it should be le=
+ft to the merchants to define how to structure them.<br>
+
+<br>This would allow a merchant to decide if he prefers per-transaction add=
+resses, per-user transactions, fixed addresses or any combination.<br><br>R=
+egards,<br>cdecker<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 13, 20=
+11 at 11:55 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@pla=
+n99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
+
+<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
+x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im"=
+><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
+px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
+
+I was in brmlab and wanted to pay 1 BTC for a Club Mate. They had on the wa=
+ll a picture of their QR code and a bitcoin address. I don&#39;t own a mobi=
+le phone so the QR code is<br>
+
+useless.</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Fixed addresses like that ar=
+e a temporary thing during Bitcoins maturation period. They lead to merchan=
+ts exposing data they probably don&#39;t realize they&#39;re exposing, like=
+ their income, which is basically unacceptable for any payment system.</div=
+>
+
+
+<div><br></div><div>There&#39;s no point trying to optimize a case where:</=
+div><div><br></div><div>1) You are in the minority (no phone?)</div><div>2)=
+ The &quot;perfect experience&quot; leaks private data in such a way that w=
+ould be deemed a gross security breach by any serious payment processor.</d=
+iv>
+
+
+<div><br></div><div>OK, some thoughts on the general proposal, from the POV=
+ of what it&#39;d take for a large deployment, like for every Gmail or ever=
+y Facebook user. In terms of ease of implementation it is ordered HTTPS/HTT=
+P then DNS trailing by a large margin. Big sites, even small sites, typical=
+ly have high-speed load balancing and demuxing already implemented for HTTP=
+[S] and it&#39;s usually easy to add new endpoints. The same is <i>not</i> =
+true of DNS, and whilst coding up a custom DNS server is possible it&#39;s =
+definitely a worse fit.</div>
+
+
+<div><br></div><div>FirstBits seems out of the question for the same privac=
+y reasons as given above. No banking system worth its salt would let everyo=
+ne look up other peoples income.</div><div><br></div><div>The simplest appr=
+oach would be to request a full public key with an HTTPS request like</div>
+
+
+<div><br></div><div>=A0 =A0foo@domain -&gt; <a href=3D"https://domain/_bitc=
+oin/getnewkey?user=3Dfoo&amp;label=3DPayment%20from%20Bob" target=3D"_blank=
+">https://domain/_bitcoin/getnewkey?user=3Dfoo&amp;label=3DPayment%20from%2=
+0Bob</a></div>
+
+<div><br></div>
+<div>If you then want to turn the resulting public key into an address befo=
+re creating a transaction you can obviously do that.</div><div><br></div><d=
+iv>BTW the BIP is pretty hard to read. Your spec for the HTTPS proposal is =
+a big pile of source code. I think it&#39;s the same as above, but it&#39;s=
+ hard to tell without more effort.</div>
+
+
+</div>
+<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
+-------<br>
+Systems Optimization Self Assessment<br>
+Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and<br>
+improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization<b=
+r>
+Self Assessment. <a href=3D"http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054=
+/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/</a><b=
+r>_______________________________________________<br>
+Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
+pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
+" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
+velopment</a><br>
+<br></blockquote></div><br>
+
+--001485f27b943422b804b3f7c18a--
+
+