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
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEB4687A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:13:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149084.authsmtp.net (outmail149084.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.84])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C8A13A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:13:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5LMDpCO003781;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:13:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5LMDnMv060033
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:13:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D5C24010B;
Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:11:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id B86BD20217; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:13:47 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 6ea96b99-37fd-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAMUEkAaAgsB AmAbWVdeUV57XGM7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQAUfGhf e1geVBlydAYIfXZ4 YQhkCyFSWhZzfFt+
RRgACGwHMGF9OjNL BV1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXBTpY REkIKkgfCV4RGSY7 XB0OVR8OJQUIVzk+
KQcnLVgHVFoWem8T CRN5AQ1AWwA8
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:13:53 -0000
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:33:32PM +0000, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:
> BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:
>=20
> - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility =
is
> desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too late
> to support JSON messages as the standard going forward
>=20
> - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole form
> of mechant identification. alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp and
> possibly keybase seem like good ideas. personally, i like keybase, since
> there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can sell with
> a github id, for example)
>=20
> - missing an optional client supplied identification
Note that "client supplied identification" is being pushed for AML/KYC
compliance, e.g. Netki's AML/KYC compliance product:
http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-identity-company-netki-launch-ssl-certif=
icate-blockchain/
This is an extremely undesirable feature to be baking into standards given =
it's
negative impact on fungibility and privacy; we should not be adopting stand=
ards
with AML/KYC support, for much the same reasons that the W3C should not be
standardizing DRM.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXabwYAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yxk4H/ij5A+OCAOHga1YCDUZqi5mX
MNIF/n9TKmAMMOUaBwdRwX8UBiZndnVWSdzfTYmUCgCzGbCTRtO9LQbKsR5tEOqN
rDvg/Q+FfTZbcedHBsnTsE2IzDCov3wjsxqoSwdsW9GJT4EE1um2CwysA189V40o
2jYmXw0c1VOvgfFfj/b3XbQGl4eEx3zaCRTQNbT5hihynH6tiAGuPYXs4EJeQokQ
hYjZ0cFZZioT+ecQtiGTPWZLanfYreTAEUmFvpdPEbKZW9Q7Eo3VGzbE8rzMGHCE
JhtcHpUKgXCZxwPczEluI6gMv6br+bfJ9q4eeb8fjU6vSHOqJHTrw+ATxH1ulLw=
=booV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5--
|
