1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1RaMzx-0005Ul-1i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:42:01 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ww0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RaMzr-00029O-KF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:42:00 +0000
Received: by wgbdt12 with SMTP id dt12so10089339wgb.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:41:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.109.106 with SMTP id hr10mr1443050wib.62.1323762109205;
Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:41:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1323751122.9491.140661010910705@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1323751122.9491.140661010910705@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AFPuoMfJFD_5BZXXwAgN97rwtOrF4xJJFO9=zQyUrcPfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
To: theymos <theymos@mm.st>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
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
-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
0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RaMzr-00029O-KF
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: <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: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:42:01 -0000
@Matt
I didn't thought about firstbits scalability, but the "registering
crap" and squatting arguments don't apply to green addresses because
no one wants fancy or easy to memorize names there. Is just a way to
make the bitcoin addresses shorter in the green addresses protocol to
be able to have various of them in the same QR-code.
@Amir
I see, the point is to be able to type the alias directly into the client.
I like the DNS proposal. This would allow for both well known working
centralized technology and namecoin (not proven, but decentralized)
options to be used.
2011/12/13, theymos <theymos@mm.st>:
> I like the user@server.com model. The protocol should be done entirely
> in DNS, though, not using HTTP connections to the server. Then the
> protocol can easily be used with Namecoin or other DNS
> replacements/enhancements later. Crypto to prevent MITM attacks can be
> an optional part of the protocol.
>
> Almost all users will be unable to set up *any* always-on Internet
> service to answer queries, so I'm not too concerned about how easy it is
> to set up the server software.
>
> I agree that FirstBits is bad for this. Unlike DNS, "registrations" last
> forever because private keys can't be transferred safely. All short
> names will be taken quickly. It will also be very expensive for clients
> to query this themselves.
>
> The CA model is broken and it should never be used by Bitcoin.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> Systems Optimization Self Assessment
> Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and
> improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization
> Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n
|
