Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF11D1BB for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:56:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mrelay2-d.mail.gandi.net (relay2-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 865AD11E for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mfilter34-d.gandi.net (mfilter34-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.165]) by mrelay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F214DC5A55 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:56:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter34-d.gandi.net Received: from mrelay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]) by mfilter34-d.gandi.net (mfilter34-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ND833fqwp9If for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:56:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 94.223.107.254 Received: from [192.168.2.153] (dslb-094-223-107-254.094.223.pools.vodafone-ip.de [94.223.107.254]) (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org) by mrelay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87187C5A5F for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:56:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55ACB7BB.2020200@electrum.org> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:56:27 +0200 From: Thomas Voegtlin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55AA54C3.7010806@electrum.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:56:32 -0000 Le 19/07/2015 01:01, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev a =C3=A9crit : >> >> I would rather not make Namecoin part of the standard, because .bit >> records cannot be verified easily by lightweight/spv wallets; they wou= ld >> need a copy of the Namecoin blockchain for that. >=20 > You are the second person to raise this. Clearly this is an item that > requires some discussion before anything is decided for sure. We had > gone this direction (and I assume Riccardo did as well) to provide a > censor resistant option as well as one that would be low cost for > individuals to be able register their own names. This also allows for > lookups that never leave the local network. The trade off there for > mobile wallets was one I feel we failed to properly consider. >=20 I think our common goal should be to standardize DNS records holding Bitcoin addresses, because they are going to be used by both Netki and Electrum. You and Ricardo may find it useful to have other types of lookups, such as Namecoin, and that's fine with me, but I do not want that to slow down or stall the current standardisation effort, because Namecoin lookups are clearly not an option for lightweight wallets. That is what I meant by 'not part of the standard'; let's work on what we have in common :)