Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rbas6-0002VZ-HZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:42:58 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rbas2-0005Fo-DU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:42:58 +0000 Received: by eaal1 with SMTP id l1so4458064eaa.34 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:42:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.9.218 with SMTP id m26mr3167053bkm.44.1324053434307; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:37:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: marek@palatinus.cz Received: by 10.204.168.15 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:36:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1323791208.31194.YahooMailNeo@web121013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201112131622.08158.andyparkins@gmail.com> From: slush Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:36:43 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0wc44JkanehdnrcnX-Ol5CwE-eA Message-ID: To: Rick Wesson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175d67ae9d941604b43836ca X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) 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 1.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rbas2-0005Fo-DU Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:42:58 -0000 --0015175d67ae9d941604b43836ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 OK, I'm ignoring your sarcastic style, I just wanted to support the URL idea, which is KISS attitude, in the oposite of everything else proposed here. I'm really affraid of over-engineering the aliases, which will make it hard to implement in clients. Somebody noticed account implementation in standard client - yes, it's good example of fail. I still don't see any serious issue with the URL proposals. And sipa's idea of posting back the transaction ID is also interesting, prividing yet another flexibility in implementation and possible usage. Btw, Rick, feel free to provide me some relevant RFCs which are solving similar problems like BIP 15. And no, it's not sarcasm, I really want to learn something new. Until now I just feel we're reinventing wheel or raping some stuff which we should not touch at all (DNS). slush On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Rick Wesson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, slush wrote: > > I really like this proposal with standard URLs. All other proposals like > DNS > > mapping or email aliases converted to URLs with some weird logic looks > > strange to me. > > wow, really. Maybe you could review some RFCs, there are thousands of > examples where some really smart engineers chose the exact opposite > path which you propose below. > > -rick > > --0015175d67ae9d941604b43836ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, I'm ignoring your sarcastic style, I just wanted to support the URL= idea, which is KISS attitude, in the oposite of everything else proposed h= ere. I'm really affraid of over-engineering the aliases, which will mak= e it hard to implement in clients. Somebody noticed account implementation = in standard client - yes, it's good example of fail.

I still don't see any serious issue with the URL proposa= ls. And sipa's idea of posting back the transaction ID is also interest= ing, prividing yet another flexibility in implementation and possible usage= .

Btw, Rick, feel free to provide me some relevant RFCs which = are solving similar problems like BIP 15. And no, it's not sarcasm, I r= eally want to learn something new. Until now I just feel we're reinvent= ing wheel or raping some stuff which we should not touch at all (DNS).

slush

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.co= m> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:= 07 PM, slush <slush@centrum.cz&g= t; wrote:
> I really like this proposal with standard URLs. All other proposals li= ke DNS
> mapping or email aliases converted to URLs with some weird logic looks=
> strange to me.

wow, really. Maybe you could review some RFCs, there are thousands of=
examples where some really smart engineers chose the exact opposite
path which you propose below.

-rick

--0015175d67ae9d941604b43836ca--