Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dot-bit.org
	designates 178.32.102.200 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=178.32.102.200; envelope-from=khal@dot-bit.org;
	helo=srv01.web-sweet-web.net; 
Message-ID: <4EEBBD84.6020907@dot-bit.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:52:04 +0100
From: Khalahan <khal@dot-bit.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111114 Icedove/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<1323979147.27319.140661012141129@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4EEB7E98.8030006@dot-bit.org>
	<CAJna-HjXp4XEHnbmX0HKsMDmnxoWQQMmqujN+D9nLV0Zz_omcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HjXp4XEHnbmX0HKsMDmnxoWQQMmqujN+D9nLV0Zz_omcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------040408060708060107090801"
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040408060708060107090801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The number of proposals <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015> is not
infinite, here are their problems :

- FirstBits : centralized
- DNS TXT Records : DNSSEC is required to have a minimum of security,
limits usage to engineers, limits usage to some domain names (i won't be
able to use a gmail address for example, because i don't control the
gmail.com domain)
- Server Service (DNS + a daemon) : Same as DNS TXT records
- HTTPS Web service : relies on HTTPS and CA, bitcoin needs to be able
to check the full certificate chain and access a list of up-to-date
certificate authorities (installed on the OS or provided with bitcoin).
And don't forget the CA model is not 100% reliable (several CA hacked
this year + possible government control...).
- IP Transactions : /This proposal seeks to enable DNS lookups for IP
transactions/ =3D> same as above

I know that providing a namecoin daemon with bitcoin is not the lighter
solution, but, if a better one existed i guess it would have already
been integrated into bitcoin... (see in what state is my first attempt
with the HTTPS proposal : Send payments to emails, urls and domains in
GUI <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/174> - /khalahan opened
this pull request April 20, 2011/)

So, what's next ?

Le 16/12/2011 20:54, slush a =E9crit :
> Khalahan, honestly, using namecoin for aliases is (for me) clean
> example of over-engineering. I mean - it will definitely work if
> implemented properly. I played with a namecoin a bit (as my pool was
> the first 'big' pool supporting merged mining), but I think there's
> really long way to provide such alias system in namecoin and *cleanly
> integrate it with bitcoin*. Don't forget that people who want to do
> lookup need to maintain also namecoin blockchain with their bitcoin
> client. It goes against my instinct of keeping stuff easy.
>
> For example, yesterday I implemented HTTPS lookup for addresses into
> my fork of Electrum client. I did it in 15 minutes, it works as
> expected, it does the job and the implementation is really
> transparent, becuase implementation is 20 lines of code. There's no
> magic transformation, no forced "?handle=3D" parameters or whatever. An=
d
> I don't care if somebody provide URL
> https://some.strange.domain/name-of-my-dog?myhandle=3D5678iop&anything_=
else=3DTrue
> <https://some.strange.domain/name-of-my-dog?myhandle=3D5678iop&anything=
_else=3DTrue>
>
> And everybody can do the same in their clients, in their merchant
> solutions, websites or whatever. Everybody can do HTTPS lookup. But
> try to explain DNS, Namecoin, IIBAN, email aliases to other programmers=
...
>
> Those IIBAN - well, why not. At least I see the potential in PR. So
> far I understand it as some teoretic concept which is not supported by
> anything else right now. Give it few years until it matures and then
> add IIBAN alias to Bitcoin client too.
>
> Maybe I'm repeating myself already, but the way to go is to make
> aliases as easy as possible, so everybody can implement it in their
> own solution and thus practially remove the need of using standard
> bitcoin addresses for normal users. Using some superior technology,
> which is hard to implement or even understand won't solve the
> situation, because it will ends up with some reference implementation
> in standard client only and nobody else will use it.
>
> slush

--=20
Best Regards,
Khalahan
http://dot-bit.org/


--------------040408060708060107090801
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    The <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015">number of
      proposals</a> is not infinite, here are their problems :<br>
    <br>
    - FirstBits : centralized<br>
    - DNS TXT Records : DNSSEC is required to have a minimum of
    security, limits usage to engineers, limits usage to some domain
    names (i won't be able to use a gmail address for example, because i
    don't control the gmail.com domain)<br>
    - Server Service (DNS + a daemon) : Same as DNS TXT records<br>
    - HTTPS Web service : relies on HTTPS and CA, bitcoin needs to be
    able to check the full certificate chain and access a list of
    up-to-date certificate authorities (installed on the OS or provided
    with bitcoin). And don't forget the CA model is not 100% reliable
    (several CA hacked this year + possible government control...).<br>
    - IP Transactions : <i>This proposal seeks to enable DNS lookups
      for IP transactions</i> =&gt; same as above<br>
    <br>
    I know that providing a namecoin daemon with bitcoin is not the
    lighter solution, but, if a better one existed i guess it would have
    already been integrated into bitcoin... (see in what state is my
    first attempt with the HTTPS proposal : <a
      href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/174">Send payments
      to emails, urls and domains in GUI</a> - <i>khalahan opened this
      pull request April 20, 2011</i>)<br>
    <br>
    So, what's next ?<br>
    <br>
    Le 16/12/2011 20:54, slush a &eacute;crit&nbsp;:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAJna-HjXp4XEHnbmX0HKsMDmnxoWQQMmqujN+D9nLV0Zz_omcg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      Khalahan, honestly, using namecoin for aliases is (for me) clean
      example of over-engineering. I mean - it will definitely work if
      implemented properly. I played with a namecoin a bit (as my pool
      was the first 'big' pool supporting merged mining), but I think
      there's really long way to provide such alias system in namecoin
      and *cleanly integrate it with bitcoin*. Don't forget that people
      who want to do lookup need to maintain also namecoin blockchain
      with their bitcoin client. It goes against my instinct of keeping
      stuff easy.
      <div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <div>For example, yesterday I implemented HTTPS lookup for
        addresses into my fork of Electrum client. I did it in 15
        minutes, it works as expected, it does the job and the
        implementation is really transparent, becuase implementation is
        20 lines of code. There's no magic transformation, no forced
        "?handle=" parameters or whatever. And I don't care if somebody
        provide URL <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://some.strange.domain/name-of-my-dog?myhandle=5678iop&amp;anything_else=True">https://some.strange.domain/name-of-my-dog?myhandle=5678iop&amp;anything_else=True</a></div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>And everybody can do the same in their clients, in their
        merchant solutions, websites or whatever. Everybody can do HTTPS
        lookup. But try to explain DNS, Namecoin, IIBAN, email aliases
        to other programmers...<br>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Those IIBAN - well, why not. At least I see the potential
          in PR. So far I understand it as some teoretic concept which
          is not supported by anything else right now. Give it few years
          until it matures and then add IIBAN alias to Bitcoin client
          too.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Maybe I'm repeating myself already, but the way to go is to
          make aliases as easy as possible, so everybody can implement
          it in their own solution and thus practially remove the need
          of using standard bitcoin addresses for normal users. Using
          some superior technology, which is hard to implement or even
          understand won't solve the situation, because it will ends up
          with some reference implementation in standard client only and
          nobody else will use it.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>slush<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Best Regards,
Khalahan
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dot-bit.org/">http://dot-bit.org/</a></pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040408060708060107090801--