On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 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.
How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg, bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signed) SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumably 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 anything like this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
