Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:45:09 -0800

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Mike Hearn <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should agree to talk about everything _except_ that first?
>
> Yeah, alternatives to X.509 chains don't interest me right now except
> in the sense that they should be cleanly implementable with future
> extensions.
>
> So if you care about DANE or DNSSEC or custom PKI infrastructures or
> whatever, rather than proposing them as replacements here (DOA), just
> figure out how you would extend the protocol in Gavins mail in a
> future extension. If you can't see a clean way to do it then let's
> discuss that. If you can think of a way to do it then let's table it.
> Better replacements can come in later BIPs.

The only part that has an x509 cert associated is in the invoice message.

message Invoice {
//    repeated bytes x509chain = 1;
    optional string domainName =1;
    repeated Output outputs = 2;
    required uint64 time = 3;
    optional uint64 expires = 4;
    optional bool single_use = 5 [default = true];
    optional string memo = 6;
    optional string receiptURI = 7;
    optional bytes merchant_data = 8;
}

Removing that and adding a opaque string called domain name, or
identityName would be sufficient to move the conversation forward
without the x.509 baggage.

-rick