Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1Rb639-00056h-6k
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:48:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Rb638-0005hj-BN
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:48:19 +0000
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so3111832wgb.10
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.206.10 with SMTP id fs10mr1287979wbb.13.1323935292267;
	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:48:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACwuEiPbLdpgYCcTHH_GCHcwGcGj5HnOMFKkQf860D4Xn0mLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+QPp0rAJz9wPcrf926q=_c45mCL_67JCyacvM79CWcic9AL2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1323929094.37881.YahooMailClassic@web120902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CACwuEiPbLdpgYCcTHH_GCHcwGcGj5HnOMFKkQf860D4Xn0mLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:48:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AFD9q+=vZPod_n_LJjCjzVnVy5w3hq4N07JZRM6=Ly-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	-0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Rb638-0005hj-BN
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:48:19 -0000

Andy sounded very convincing when talking in favor of URLs. What's
wrong with his proposal?

2011/12/15, Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>:
> To my mind, it is far more likely that third party hosted services
> (such as providers of hosted wallet, conventional currency holding and
> exchange services) will provide aliasing resolution, and that these
> alias resolution services will operate on an alias@provider mechanism
> (for example, IIBAN and its 'institution' codes @ ).

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.