1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1RaVX2-0004Lo-85
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:48:44 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ey0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RaVWw-0005pQ-Pl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:48:44 +0000
Received: by eaal1 with SMTP id l1so2177070eaa.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:48:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.156.216 with SMTP id y24mr7903772bkw.80.1323794912508;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.229.145 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:48:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACwuEiNO=pSfgD415-5=HnaXdXbZ++Ps0n4cyjckLRRP-tJemA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAGQP0AGvq603oshSGiP79A+gqDqW_hHG+qZjaZccCmo+gd3W2A@mail.gmail.com>
<201112121841.39864.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGQP0AGBKKEqhaJZj-Rw400AjrVHE9_EMve=RWdqoaOaDsTgtw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AGY32QP=rXyGftb5NbHA7fhcCne7W=pt5+onXp1Jbm98Q@mail.gmail.com>
<1323736946.58149.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CANEZrP1oPaqAT+LCfrAXO9WBz+oC2uvbP=5vx2+DX2P0qFusgA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALxbBHUgCOVMRxtnsmC2W-MaYfeDSzaftWMCCgcWsMBdZfzPQg@mail.gmail.com>
<CACwuEiNO=pSfgD415-5=HnaXdXbZ++Ps0n4cyjckLRRP-tJemA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:48:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3g=27QwQaoBKKJ2ckZhOUVMokRYNDq9yRXfGzVQOuFJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1RaVWw-0005pQ-Pl
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:48:44 -0000
RE: IIBAN numbers:
Nifty! Thanks for the pointers, I think we should avoid reinventing
wheels whenever possible.
When composing my last response in this thread I wrote, and then erased:
"There doesn't have to be one solution: I'd like to see some
experimentation, with clients supporting different schemes for bitcoin
address aliases, and maybe supporting plugins to extend the schemes
supported (a plugin would take a string, do some
behind-the-scenes-magic, and return a bitcoin address or public key)."
Defining Bitcoin as an IIBAN "institution", with 36^6 "accounts",
seems like a forward-thinking idea, although I'm not clear on exactly
how those 2.2billion "accounts" would get allocated and mapped into
bitcoin addresses.
I imagine some central organization that maps IIBAN account numbers to
domain names... and then clients (or plugins in the clients) query
that trusted central organization and then the account holder's domain
to get a (possibly unique) public key or bitcoin address.
As long as IIBANs are not the ONLY way of aliasing bitcoin addresses
to more-human-friendly strings I think that would be a fine way to do
it.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
