Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1Rb639-00056h-6k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:48:19 +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=timon.elviejo@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 1Rb638-0005hj-BN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:48:19 +0000 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so3111832wgb.10 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.206.10 with SMTP id fs10mr1287979wbb.13.1323935292267; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CACwuEiPbLdpgYCcTHH_GCHcwGcGj5HnOMFKkQf860D4Xn0mLsQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA+QPp0rAJz9wPcrf926q=_c45mCL_67JCyacvM79CWcic9AL2w@mail.gmail.com> <1323929094.37881.YahooMailClassic@web120902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CACwuEiPbLdpgYCcTHH_GCHcwGcGj5HnOMFKkQf860D4Xn0mLsQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:48:12 +0100 Message-ID: <CAGQP0AFD9q+=vZPod_n_LJjCjzVnVy5w3hq4N07JZRM6=Ly-FQ@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: -0.7 (/) 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 -0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rb638-0005hj-BN 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:48:19 -0000 Andy sounded very convincing when talking in favor of URLs. What's wrong with his proposal? 2011/12/15, Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>: > To my mind, it is far more likely that third party hosted services > (such as providers of hosted wallet, conventional currency holding and > exchange services) will provide aliasing resolution, and that these > alias resolution services will operate on an alias@provider mechanism > (for example, IIBAN and its 'institution' codes @ ). Why don't just... bitcoin://url.without.explicitly.specifying.provider bitcoin://alias@provider bitcoin://IIBAN@authorizedBitcoinInstitution ?? By the way, I don't like the fact that a single authorized institution needs to map the IIBANs to bitcoin addresses.