MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpe6x_aB_-Q5VLh164eoqqqwWBa1sy=UE-0u=jAD2+xTXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8xBpe6x_aB_-Q5VLh164eoqqqwWBa1sy=UE-0u=jAD2+xTXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:02:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJ1JLttwSdjYUm2zFAQ4XczEaoG29u-Nq8gjhsn-rjG1yWzFVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

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 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 the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,
but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if
my identity and those of my transactions were "known" and associated
both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions
(which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is
important, at least for the merchant.

-rick


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is the next big "lets all agree to do things the same way" thing
>> I think we should tackle. I'm particularly looking for feedback from
>> other bitcoin client developers, even if it is just a quick "looks
>> reasonable, if everybody else is going to do it then I will
>> (eventually) too..."
>
> Comments:
>
> 1) Payment message should include ability to specify the transaction
> _or_ a transaction id sent via normal means over the network.
>
> 2) I think a significant bitcoin userbase will want to operate outside
> the full root-CA chain.  Just look at https:// websites now.
> Self-signed certs are quite common, because it is easier, while being
> more secure than http://
>
> So some provision for self-signed certs, a use case in wide use
> elsewhere, or equivalent thereof, seems reasonable.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik@exmulti.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single
> web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware,
> SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.
> Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development