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 ) 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 ; 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> <20111216161653.GA11672@ulyssis.org> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:21:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rick Wesson To: Pieter Wuille 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:21:51 -0000 On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Pieter Wuille 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