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
|
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 <luke@dashjr.org>) 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" <luke@dashjr.org>
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>
<CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: <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: 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.
|
