From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:44:43 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.7.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201112181644.44134.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
Precedence: list

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=20
HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg,=20
bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signe=
d)=20
SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumabl=
y=20
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 anythin=
g=20
like this.