Obviously this LGTM :)

Minor caveat, IMHO we should support all CAs used by the popular
browsers. This ensures no merchant ever finds that their SSL cert they
already own is OK for the web but not for Bitcoin. I don't see a need
to be stricter here, given all it achieves is signing some data in a
way linked with a domain name.

X.509 is pretty baroque indeed, for our use cases it'd not be hard to
do better. In particular, the inability to delegate properly rather
defeats the benefits of chained certificates. For the payment
processor case what you really want to do is take your keys, then
issue a new cert that is specific to signing Bitcoin transactions and
give that to the payment processor secure in the knowledge that they
cannot MITM your secure connections. Unfortunately X.509 wasn't
designed for the web and thus certificates you buy are marked such
that they are not allowed to sign for other certs (due to lack of real
namespace support).

This leads to the idea of redefining the cert chain part of the
protocol like this:

  repeated bytes x509_chain = 1;


  message Certificate {
    enum Type {
      X509 = 1;
    required Type type = 1;
    required bytes data = 2;

  repeated Certificate cert_chain = 1;

Then if later we want to introduce our own minimal certificate formats
which include features we want, we can add new enum types to do so.

Note that if an old client encounters an invoice with a cert type it
doesn't recognize, it will abort parsing of the message entirely. So
the request to download the invoice should probably include a protocol
version number of some kind so the server knows when it's safe to use
new invoice features.

Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single
web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware,
SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.
Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications!
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to