Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Td9Hf-0005dt-0a for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:19 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Td9He-00048Y-0m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:18 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [173.170.188.216]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB1B327A296E; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:10 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.5.4-gentoo; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201211262344.03385.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201211270044.05489.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Td9He-00048Y-0m Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:19 -0000 On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:16:07 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 11:32:46 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > >> Would you find it acceptable if something supported a static whitelist > >> plus a OS provided list minus a user configured blacklist and the > >> ability for sophisticated users to disable the whitelist? > > > > How is this whitelist any different from the list of CAs included by > > default with every OS? > > Because the list is not identical (and of course, couldn't be without > centralizing control of all OSes :P ) meaning that the software has to > be setup in a way where false-positive authentication failures are a > common thing (terrible for user security) or merchants have to waste a > bunch of time, probably unsuccessfully, figuring out what certs work > sufficiently 'everwhere' and likely end up handing over extortion > level fees to the most well established CAs that happen to be included > on the oldest and most obscure things. There is a common subset of CAs which are included in all OSs. That's the "whitelist equivalent". We or someone else could even setup a list of these common CAs for merchants if that is needed. The fees CAs charge for certs is a flaw in the CA model in general, I don't see that it's important for us to solve it.