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
112
113
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andyparkins@gmail.com>) id 1Rbeo2-0000Up-Je
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:55:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Rbeo0-00054e-Cn
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:55:02 +0000
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so6204673wgb.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.84.71 with SMTP id w7mr14920258wiy.37.1324068894285;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grissom.localnet ([91.84.15.31])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hq5sm14600710wib.7.2011.12.16.12.54.51
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:54:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:54:50 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.4; i686; ; )
References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<201112161710.15165.andyparkins@gmail.com>
<CAJ1JLts8JQ2J=DqJTD76gq2KB02ycqqeJjwaDyY2tPX8SJwvVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ1JLts8JQ2J=DqJTD76gq2KB02ycqqeJjwaDyY2tPX8SJwvVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201112162054.51039.andyparkins@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(andyparkins[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
X-Headers-End: 1Rbeo0-00054e-Cn
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: <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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:55:02 -0000
On Friday 16 Dec 2011 17:41:25 Rick Wesson wrote:
> Its a negative example -- in that the IETF does not specify anything
> in the PATH part of the URI. The scheme, sure, but not in the path,
> there are many types of URI schemes ( start with RFC 2396 )
You seem to have jumped off the topic; you mentioned that there were
thousands of RFCs that we should review over why we shouldn't use a URI; and
you've pointed at an RFC that shows how a URI can be used.
While you're right that CGI and HTTP aren't magic; they are commonplace; and
it's important when we want an infinitely expandable mapping system that
people can use technology they are already familiar with. People already
have web servers, people already understand URIs. It's not "just what we
are used to"; people who can cope with development of the bitcoin protocol
aren't going to be worried about protocol complexity. It is a concern about
what the rest of the world will have to do to get a bitcoin alias.
> Providing a mapping from user@authority.tld addresses usability and
No it doesn't address usability at all, because it falls down on the first
attempt: what if I want to supply a URI that allows my web service to link
an invoice number to an issued bitcoin address? You've forced every mapping
service to be identical, and limited.
> identity. I'd like to see an elegant transformation, specifically I
> take to task anyone that advocates
> https://authority/foo/user?tx=1zhd789632uilos as elegant.
You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "user@authority.tld" is
"https://authority.tld/user" or "https://user.authority.tld/" or
"https://google.com/bitcoin/user" or any of an infinite number of other
variations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote
the BIP; all of which are arguably no less "elegant" than that simple email.
There is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who
want's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in
"user@authority.tld"?
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com
|
