Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiP7CGeZZGW=mXwrFAAqbbwbrPXTPb8vOEDuO9_96hqBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSY8hHiCJYEDv=y48hYRJJtB-R5EBX8JLz6NivBm+Z9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiMjf8WYOpfmzHUHMa-sy2VsJHaUNj1cj722Y=P_sosbvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLtuJ8HQri7++2bodc2ACRrE7Y48oy0HkPR8d400MooHaqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiMgcv09U2P9dD58x-oMXMSg==fPYo0yRLsqzyuax96Eqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLttTPi9XNwCGyvbvx8TXqbLyk0KxFRHxv_8UB+tEQrKvvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwuEiNZobcpR4g=1AH=JReZFzHmH=6exNGTaPBBjm+q5eR9vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<895A1D97-68B4-4A2F-B4A1-34814B9BA8AC@ceptacle.com>
	<CANEZrP1u0-JNf1nd4NsZhrqC=M0Yx3J6cTYA=bzKm8CTucd85w@mail.gmail.com>
	<626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:03:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP03kSG5BYMykkW+UJiy65qPOBC7RuvKg85eLEmE3tnukQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

> Further, the inclusion of x509 is not really needed in the spec - you don't need to sign the invoice with an x509, you can use the payment key.

No, the point of using X509 certs is to get a verified identity (a
domain name) on the receipt, this is needed for multi-factor
authentication. You can't do that without some kind of third party
asserting to an identity.