Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rb88J-0007uI-Cv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:01:47 +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 1Rb88D-0006Fz-MN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:01:47 +0000 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so3307340wgb.10 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.206.200 with SMTP id fv8mr1584662wbb.11.1323943295582; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id di5sm7545904wib.3.2011.12.15.02.01.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:01:33 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Parkins To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:01:14 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; ) References:

In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart24076967.RVlZ8CDTU3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112151001.23274.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 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rb88D-0006Fz-MN 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:01:47 -0000 --nextPart24076967.RVlZ8CDTU3 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011 December 15 Thursday, Walter Stanish wrote: > > Andy sounded very convincing when talking in favor of URLs. What's > > wrong with his proposal? >=20 > A URI identifies a resource and is in effect an alias itself. > Identifying a resource is different from interacting with it. So, > while :// will work > sufficiently for the identification, it does not explain the > interaction. Quite so; the BIP15 standard shouldn't be setting the format of the URI; it= =20 should be setting what the format of the client-server conversation is. =20 Effectively, what headers will a requesting client send? What headers shou= ld=20 a server require? What will a server respond? > Interaction is a requirement, since there seems to be a widely felt > need to preserve anonymity through the use of temporary addresses. I think that's missing the point; any aliasing scheme is definitely reducin= g=20 your anonymity, neccessarily so -- the alias has to be looked up somewhere,= =20 that somewhere reduces anonymity. If anonymity is what you want, stick wit= h=20 just a bitcoin address. The point of an aliasing server is surely to be ab= le=20 to give a single, unchanging, well known label to a transacting party, but= =20 still enable that party to generate a new address per transaction. I want my webshop to be able to say "please pay 3.20 BTC to=20 https://mywebshop.com/payments/orderid=3D27282" to enable the automatic=20 connection from orderid to bitcoin address (which my payment system can the= n=20 monitor for payment receipt). (This is just one example). > Generating a temporary address requires some actual processing to > achieve, since the issuing of the new address cannot be done without > interacting with the entity hosting the wallet (unless I'm missing > something?). Well yes; but then the client has no idea what address to send to unless it= =20 connects to that URI... interaction/address generation is done when that=20 connection is made. In short: I don't really think that this aliasing system should be concerni= ng=20 itself with preserving anonymity of the receiving party. That is almost=20 certainly already gone (I'm hardly likely to send money to someone I don't= =20 know unless I like gifting random cash). The sending party loses a little= =20 anonymity because their IP is revealed when they connect to the aliasing=20 system. But there is very little anonymity in a supplier-client relationsh= ip=20 anyway (you have to say what goods you want, and where you want them, and y= ou=20 had to interact with a website when you were ordering already). Andy =2D-=20 Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com --nextPart24076967.RVlZ8CDTU3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk7pxWsACgkQwQJ9gE9xL22zfwCfSLPpzbxOAHlIrQuwBJEmPw8X 2VEAmwUzL8kgNMScvGnk69dmyce5bg7F =jKoN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart24076967.RVlZ8CDTU3--