+1
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
>
>> The exchanges that are kept track of could be hard coded into Bitcoin or
>> the miner could choose, how this works is not something I'm personally
>> focused on.
>>
>>
> That is l
I'd raised this topic before suggesting to leverage DNS as its kinda useful
for mapping names to numbers.
Expect no support.
-rick
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Chris Evans wrote:
> wonder if it would be good idea to have a alias to wallet id nameserver in
> the client software where a perso
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
>
> We are not establishing an IETF working group, which is an option that
> was explored prior to the Paris meeting and has been sidelined at
> present for depth-of-bureaucracy by the backing commercial entities.
> Rather, we are establishing a top-level IANA registry group. This is
> not anticipa
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Walter Stanish wrote:
>>> X-ISO4217-A3
>>
>> I see that draft-stanish-x-iso4217-a3 is not standards track, is there
>> a reason for this?
>
> Of the three currently published proposals, all are essentially IANA
> registry proposals.
>
> We are currently working wit
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Mike Hearn 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 car
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote:
>> Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a
>> payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)
>>
>> Now I am sure
I hope you all take a moment to see what DANE leverages with DNSSEC
and SelfSigned x.509 certs. DANE provides the capability for any
entity to associate a self signed certificate with a domain name. This
capability removes the critical path of whitelists and/or Root CA
certs.
Another nifty thing i
X.509 has some problems we have recent experience with. I'd prefer to
leverage something like DANE which looks to help with assertions
around certificates and creates an option around the CAs and x.509
roots.
-rick
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> This is the next big "l
You are describing the problem DANE addresses, see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-protocol-12
Using Secure DNS to Associate Certificates with Domain Names For TLS
Abstract
TLS and DTLS use PKIX certificates for authenticating the server.
Users want their applications to verify
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Khalahan wrote:
> The number of proposals is not infinite, here are their problems :
>
> - FirstBits : centralized
> - DNS TXT Records : DNSSEC is required to have a minimum of security, limits
> usage to engineers, limits usage to some domain names (i won't be abl
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Parkins wrote:
[snip]
>
> You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "u...@authority.tld" is
> "https://authority.tld/user"; or "https://user.authority.tld/"; or
> "https://google.com/bitcoin/user"; or any of an infinite number of other
> variations that _I
Agreed, I find measured dialog much more valuable. I also agree that
standards take time and are messy, though choosing a standard allows
additional participation and can drive interopability. One does not
need to accept IBANN but we should participate in the dialog in its
development. internet-dra
hority.tld addresses usability and
identity. I'd like to see an elegant transformation, specifically I
take to task anyone that advocates
https://authority/foo/user?tx=1zhd789632uilos as elegant.
-rick
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Andy Parkins wrote:
> On 2011 December 16 Friday,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:03:28AM -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:
>> Hardening the protocols and usability are related. Please look at some
>> of the work done in the IETF which has a long history in addressing
>> many
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:21:09PM -0800, Amir Taaki wrote:
>> I wrote this pre-draft:
[snip]
>
> To conclude: my suggestion would be to use URLs as address identifiers,
> optionally suffixed with a bitcoin address for authentication.
> Th
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, slush wrote:
> 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.
wow, really. Maybe you could review some RFCs, there are thousands of
examples whe
> 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 in
tect it now. Please make a donation today:
> http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 12/14/11, Kyle Henderson * wrote:
>
>
> From: Kyle Henderson
>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
> To: "Zell Faze"
> Cc: "Luke-Jr"
understand that not *everyone* wants or will adhere to that best
practice and in my NSHO it isn't.
-rick
2011/12/14 Luke-Jr :
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:02:25 PM Rick Wesson wrote:
>> I also am largely in favor of using secured zones to publish TXT
>> records to digi
I was looking at the wiki entry for this and noticed that your
description of DNSSEC is incorrect. It is an internet standard and is
widely deployed in the root (.), many TLDs, ccTLDs and second leverl
domains.
Also understand when the IETF or ICANN adopts new (we worked on DNSSEC
no less than 10
I've got minna patches for nio based on bitcoinj. I've enumerated the
network a few times and am working on a DNS seed service as well as some
weather reports.
Happy to start a branch when the committers are ready.
-rick
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Steve wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I started me
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Rick Wesson
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> >>
> >> > - Repl
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
>
> > - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that
> can
> > dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it can't
> be
> > gamed?
>
> Too earl
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Gavin Andresen
> wrote:
> > It seems to me the fastest path to very secure, very-hard-to-lose
> > bitcoin wallets is multi-signature transactions.
> >
> > To organize this discussion: first, does everybod
wow, with all the feature requests and bug fixing that needs to be done you
want to go off on a tangent.
Vision my friend, once centered on robust architecture, may then be directed
on a hard left turn.
Lets get a feature road map done, bug fix and testing framework set up
... or fork this puppy
26 matches
Mail list logo
