From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:44:00 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.5.4-gentoo; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201211262319.37533.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgS3f1RKzPnni4LXgXfSUrxSrB3+vhdmbsVz2Rs5pScL=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgS3f1RKzPnni4LXgXfSUrxSrB3+vhdmbsVz2Rs5pScL=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201211262344.03385.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

On Monday, November 26, 2012 11:32:46 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Obviously the state of the world with browsers is not that good... but
> in our own UAs we can do better and get closer to that.

This effectively centralizes Bitcoin (at least in the eyes of many) and even 
if each competing client had their own list, you'd be back to the original 
"problem" of not being sure your CA is on all lists.

> 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?