Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RcQdR-0001NR-JC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:59:17 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RcQdQ-0007rK-9n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:59:17 +0000 Received: by eaal1 with SMTP id l1so6280175eaa.34 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:59:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.154.136 with SMTP id o8mr4522272bkw.112.1324252748302; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:59:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: marek@palatinus.cz Received: by 10.204.168.15 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:58:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201112181644.44134.luke@dashjr.org> References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201112181644.44134.luke@dashjr.org> From: slush Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:58:37 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nJOKx-5eTtE0s35-_hkBXp-nRB4 Message-ID: To: Luke-Jr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151761ca76a7c99204b4669e1d X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (slush[at]centrum.cz) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RcQdQ-0007rK-9n Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases 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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:59:17 -0000 --00151761ca76a7c99204b4669e1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe I'm retarded, but where's the point in providing alliases containing yet another hash in URL? slush On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 PM Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > > 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. > > How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how > HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg, > bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its > (self-signed) > SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin > presumably > has some way to do this as well. > > > Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered > > message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such. > > At some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for > anything > like this. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 > Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for > developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what i= t > provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. > Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --00151761ca76a7c99204b4669e1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe I'm retarded, but where's the point in providing alliases con= taining yet another hash in URL?

slush

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wro= te:
On Sunday, December 18, 20= 11 4:05:11 PM Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> 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.

How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are= how
HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg,
bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signe= d)
SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumabl= y
has some way to do this as well.

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

At some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for a= nything
like this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Learn Windows Azure Live! =A0Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for
developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it<= br> provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online.
Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--00151761ca76a7c99204b4669e1d--