I can't speak for Namecoin. As for the HTTPS requirement, I'm on the fence. Without it, the resolution is open to a man in the middle attack. Perhaps HTTPS should be required, and if HTTP is used, a large warning message is displayed.
As for the answered message format, is JSON the assumed structure that would be used? On 12/18/2011 1:05 PM, Jorge Timón 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. > > Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered > message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
