MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpe6x_aB_-Q5VLh164eoqqqwWBa1sy=UE-0u=jAD2+xTXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the next big "lets all agree to do things the same way" thing
> I think we should tackle. I'm particularly looking for feedback from
> other bitcoin client developers, even if it is just a quick "looks
> reasonable, if everybody else is going to do it then I will
> (eventually) too..."

Comments:

1) Payment message should include ability to specify the transaction
_or_ a transaction id sent via normal means over the network.

2) I think a significant bitcoin userbase will want to operate outside
the full root-CA chain.  Just look at https:// websites now.
Self-signed certs are quite common, because it is easier, while being
more secure than http://

So some provision for self-signed certs, a use case in wide use
elsewhere, or equivalent thereof, seems reasonable.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com