Maybe I'm retarded, but where's the point in providing alliases containing
yet another hash in URL?

slush

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> 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
>