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
|
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 <rick.wesson@iidf.org>) id 1RbaXe-0000bp-V8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:21:50 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RbaXZ-0002qT-Mn
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:21:50 +0000
Received: by vbbfc21 with SMTP id fc21so3609621vbb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:21:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.21.211 with SMTP id x19mr6566655vde.58.1324052500139; Fri,
16 Dec 2011 08:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.37.80 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:21:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111216161653.GA11672@ulyssis.org>
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<20111216083536.GA20470@ulyssis.org>
<CAJ1JLtsRGF8wQBE0Uym67baw4wWT6hGamGjSPWyuB_em479y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20111216161653.GA11672@ulyssis.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:21:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJ1JLts0aFJsNue5VTuSQ8zRaZ=JemceK0CNn7TVD7tWJ0UzAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RbaXZ-0002qT-Mn
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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:21:51 -0000
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:03:28AM -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:
>> Hardening the protocols and usability are related. Please look at some
>> of the work done in the IETF which has a long history in addressing
>> many of the issues you are considering. Review some of the elegance in
>> the bitcoin protocols. The proposals in this thread are neither clear
>> nor elegant. If you can't reach nearly the same level of
>> sophistication then I suggest you rethink your scheme.
>
> That's why you use URI + bitcoin address pairs, and use SSL communication
> authenticated using the respective bitcoin pubkey. They may spoof your DNS
> server, they can't fake having the requested corresponding private key.
You are making my point (again) regarding usability and security.
Aliases are not a https secured URI+bitcoin address.
-rick
|
