Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RcOXO-0002n4-Np for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:44:54 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RcOXN-00016y-UO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:44:54 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 261C4560510; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:44:48 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:44:43 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.7.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201112181644.44134.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RcOXN-00016y-UO 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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:44:54 -0000 On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 PM Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated > to map the IP of the server by those who want to. > Does it removes the necessity of the certificates? > If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or > whatever they trust. How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how=20 HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg,=20 bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signe= d)=20 SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumabl= y=20 has some way to do this as well. > Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered > message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such. At some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for anythin= g=20 like this.