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
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <walter.stanish@gmail.com>) id 1Rb6eO-0002pz-A2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.175; envelope-from=walter.stanish@gmail.com;
helo=mail-iy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Rb6eK-00015O-BS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:48 +0000
Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so3247215iad.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:26:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.72.135 with SMTP id o7mr1922819icj.45.1323937598980; Thu,
15 Dec 2011 00:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Sender: walter.stanish@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.151.69 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:26:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AFD9q+=vZPod_n_LJjCjzVnVy5w3hq4N07JZRM6=Ly-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+QPp0rAJz9wPcrf926q=_c45mCL_67JCyacvM79CWcic9AL2w@mail.gmail.com>
<1323929094.37881.YahooMailClassic@web120902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CACwuEiPbLdpgYCcTHH_GCHcwGcGj5HnOMFKkQf860D4Xn0mLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AFD9q+=vZPod_n_LJjCjzVnVy5w3hq4N07JZRM6=Ly-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:26:38 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Rhb3SsXET3CkIppHWLBQk0g_-_4
Message-ID: <CACwuEiMu1iMnrv2zubqUugSwxu_jWmNxJtPuhdNoqJPgRHhKhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
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
(walter.stanish[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Rb6eK-00015O-BS
Cc: 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:48 -0000
>> Why don't just...
>>
>> bitcoin://url.without.explicitly.specifying.provider
>> bitcoin://alias@provider
>> bitcoin://IIBAN@authorizedBitcoinInstitution ??
> Andy sounded very convincing when talking in favor of URLs. What's
> wrong with his proposal?
A URI identifies a resource and is in effect an alias itself.
Identifying a resource is different from interacting with it. So,
while <resource-type>://<resource-type-specific-alias> will work
sufficiently for the identification, it does not explain the
interaction.
Interaction is a requirement, since there seems to be a widely felt
need to preserve anonymity through the use of temporary addresses.
Generating a temporary address requires some actual processing to
achieve, since the issuing of the new address cannot be done without
interacting with the entity hosting the wallet (unless I'm missing
something?).
> By the way, I don't like the fact that a single authorized institution
> needs to map the IIBANs to bitcoin addresses.
This is not the case. Please read my earlier response to Gavin and the
IIBAN specification itself to clarify. That would be a total breach
of privacy since the entity would have access to financial information
on all transactions using the IIBAN identifiers... prior to
transactions being executed.
It *is* true that under the current IIBAN proposal there would be one
entity (IANA) in charge of issuing namespace portions ('institution
codes' - probably best to rename these...), however:
- The policy is strict and something similar to 'give one out to
anyone except existing financial instutions with the pre-existing
capacity to issue IBAN'.
- IANA have a pretty reasonable track record
- This suggestion, like the entire proposal, is open for discussion
and modification. If you can think of a more efficient and fair way
of assigning namespace prefixes to random entities on the internet
that doesn't require someone *without* an established track record of
doing this for the internet community to take up IANA's place, then
I'd be happy to hear it. Whilst a bitcoin-like 'community consensus'
system is conceivably possible to deploy in its place, I don't think
it's necessary.
Regards,
Walter Stanish
Payward, Inc.
|
