I prefer to leverage the signing of the (.) root in the DNS tree. The
amount of effort in signing the root holds more weight than building a CA
off the bitcoin blockchain.
If you want to associate identifiers for payment addresses I suggest
putting those in DNSSEC signed records in the DNS.
For r
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Timo Hanke wrote:
> It's not about technical differences, but about the different use or
> purpose, which can result in different security demands. I argue that
> DNS has a lower demand in this respect than payment ids have. So DNS
> data can be in a chain with a
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:01:48PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, February 09, 2013 2:33:25 PM Timo Hanke wrote:
> > namcoin tries to solve a different problem, DNS, whereas I want
> > to establish an identity for a payment protocol.
>
> What is the technical difference here? Namecoin ties n
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 03:33:25PM +0100, Timo Hanke wrote:
> > Why don't you use namecoin or another alt-chain for this?
>
> Because namcoin tries to solve a different problem, DNS, whereas I want
> to establish an identity for a payment protocol. Your incoming payments
> will land on addresses t
Hi, you may be interested in a couple of related projects.
Colored coins uses satoshis to represent smart property, shares, IOUs
of another currency...Colored coins can be atomically traded for
bitcoin. If you implement the trade across chains contract they would
also be tradeable for another chai
5 matches
Mail list logo
