From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:19:34 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.5.4-gentoo; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201211262313.44463.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CANEZrP3nmUHbKsJVTL=mT62OwBU0bPj7S__1ep1KvyqSzsy1jQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3nmUHbKsJVTL=mT62OwBU0bPj7S__1ep1KvyqSzsy1jQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201211262319.37533.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

On Monday, November 26, 2012 11:16:03 PM Mike Hearn wrote:
> They could be included as well of course, but from a seller
> perspective the most important thing is consistency. You have to be
> able to predict what CAs the user has, otherwise your invoice would
> appear in the UI as unverified and is subject to manipulation by
> viruses, etc.

That's expected behaviour - except it's mainly be manipulated by *users*, not 
viruses (which can just as easily manipulate whatever custom cert store we 
use). If I don't trust Joe's certs, I don't want Bitcoin overriding that no 
matter who Joe is or what connections he has.

> So using the OS cert store would effectively restrict merchants to the
> intersection of what ships in all the operating systems their users
> use, which could be unnecessarily restrictive. As far as I know, every
> browser has its own cert store for that reason.

Browsers with this bug are not relevant IMO.