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
|
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 <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1RbNqV-0006yp-Mo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:48:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=173.246.101.161;
envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RbNqU-0007j3-Hd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:48:27 +0000
Received: from [152.23.99.207] (dhcp05033.highsouth-resnet.unc.edu
[152.23.99.207])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FD293E0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:42:51 +0100 (CET)
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <1323979147.27319.140661012141129@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1323979147.27319.140661012141129@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:48:17 -0500
Message-ID: <1324003697.3719.5.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-2.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RbNqU-0007j3-Hd
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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:48:27 -0000
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:59 -0600, theymos wrote:
> Bitcoin already has code and a protocol for transactions to IP
> addresses. Why not reuse that for dynamic address lookup? Just a few
> changes are necessary to enable complete user@server.com handling:
I'm not against this, but I think its way overcomplicated when compared
to the DNS or HTTPS methods.
> - Extend the protocol so that "reply" messages can be signed by a fixed
> public key
> - Extend "checkorder" messages so they can specify an account to
> send BTC to. Or standardize on how to put the account into the
> message field.
OK, not too debatable, but considering how terrible bitcoind's account
handling is, the second might not be easy to get right...
> - Enable DNS lookups for IP transactions. The DNS-only proposals could
> also be used here to avoid having to use the IP transaction protocol
> sometimes. The public key for signing "reply" messages can be gotten
> from TXT records. This will be safe with DNSSEC and Namecoin. With
> plain DNS Bitcoin could take a SSH-like approach and ask the user to
> verify the public key the first time it is used, remembering it later.
This is where I think this method becomes way overcomplicated. Not only
do you have to update the IP-Transaction code, but now you have to
implement the full DNS System that is the other option as well. Note
that to make this secure, we have to have a full DNSSEC-capable resolver
built-into bitcoind (there are libs, but it has to happen). Yes you can
ask the user "does this fingerprint look right to you? Y/N" but that
always opens you up to a ton of users getting screwed out of coins and I
don't think it should be enabled, except in bitcoind, and since the main
target of this whole alias system is bitcoin-qt users, well...
Matt
|
