Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1RcNv6-0007x1-8U
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:05:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1RcNv3-0003IL-Ua
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:05:20 +0000
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so8668714wgb.10
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:05:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.80.197 with SMTP id t5mr7313230wix.48.1324242311867; Sun,
	18 Dec 2011 13:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:05:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<4EEBBD84.6020907@dot-bit.org>
	<CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:05:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
	(timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
	-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
	-0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RcNv3-0003IL-Ua
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:05:20 -0000

If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated
to map the IP of the server by those who want to.
Does it removes the necessity of the certificates?
If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or
whatever they trust.

Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered
message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such.