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
On 2011 December 15 Thursday, Walter Stanish wrote:
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
2011/12/15, Walter Stanish wal...@stani.sh:
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
Why don't just...
bitcoin://url.without.explicitly.specifying.provider
bitcoin://alias@provider
bitcoin://IIBAN@authorizedBitcoinInstitution ??
By the way, I don't like the fact that a single authorized institution
needs to map the IIBANs to bitcoin addresses.
The IANA is a good
OK, I admit that this is *really* of little importance...
But could someone with commit rights please update the CDataStream test table
in the code. The arguments for the custom stream are just way off (stringstream
wins by factor 10-20!). On OS X (g++) I get:
Further, if you get(got) bad
This is maybe the best idea. I added it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015#IP_Transactions
Things I like about this:
- IP transactions are useful, but have a security flaw. This mitigates their
security problems.
- The code for IP transactions is already in Satoshi client. If other clients
I really like this proposal with standard URLs. All other proposals like
DNS mapping or email aliases converted to URLs with some weird logic looks
strange to me.
Plain URLs (returning address in response body, redirecting to URI
bitcoin:address or anything else) are very clear solution, easy to
This is the first proposal I've seen regarding mapping something like
user@host that actually makes sense to me.
Bitcoin itself is decentralised by design, in my opinion it seems obvious
that it needs to continue to maintain this feature.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:59 AM, theymos they...@mm.st
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:59 -0600, theymos wrote:
Bitcoin already has code and a protocol for transactions to IP
addresses. Why not reuse that for dynamic address lookup? Just a few
changes are necessary to enable complete u...@server.com handling:
I'm not against this, but I think its way
Bitcoin itself is decentralised by design, in my opinion it seems obvious
that it needs to continue to maintain this feature.
What's the real issue?
- People want to use alternate representations ('aliases') of bitcoin
addresses, for various reasons.
- The blockchain is the only way to
10 matches
Mail list logo