Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <andyparkins@gmail.com>) id 1RaV7a-0008Fq-T9
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:22:26 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1RaV7V-0005nC-54
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:22:26 +0000
Received: by faaa20 with SMTP id a20so474264faa.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.107.97 with SMTP id hb1mr27699592wib.18.1323793333838;
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:22:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dw6sm30451404wib.12.2011.12.13.08.22.10
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:22:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:22:00 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; )
References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CABsx9T1wksXjLy=EC6dK1WtVFEayL-HgXWtENgSPXhU6Du2Srg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1323791208.31194.YahooMailNeo@web121013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1323791208.31194.YahooMailNeo@web121013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2373416.GlT41jfGsN";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201112131622.08158.andyparkins@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(andyparkins[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.0 HS_INDEX_PARAM URI: Link contains a common tracker pattern.
	-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
	-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RaV7V-0005nC-54
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: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:22:27 -0000

--nextPart2373416.GlT41jfGsN
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2011 December 13 Tuesday, Amir Taaki wrote:

> Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the document, but this is the intent with
> the HTTPS proposal.

I don't like the idea of a hard-coded mapping at all.  We shouldn't be maki=
ng=20
choices on behalf of server operators.  It's up to them how they arrange th=
eir=20
domain names and paths.

I also agree that DNS is not the technology to use.  DNS is a nightmare.

> genjix@foo.org
>=20
> Contacts https://foo.org/bitcoin-alias/?handle=3Dgenjix and the system
> responds with a bitcoin address. Whether the system gives you a new
> address from a pool of addresses, or contacts the merchant behind the
> scenes is implementation defined.
>=20
> I'll clarify it later. This is the relevant line:
>=20
> string strRequestUrl =3D strDomain + "/bitcoin-alias/?handle=3D" +
> pszEncodedNick;
>=20
> Between HTTPS service and server service, I lean slightly towards HTTPS
> (automatic encrypted connection, CAs + all benefits of DNS). But still
> interested in arguments in favour of a server service (daemon answering
> queries).

Why bother with an encoding scheme at all?  If the address

  genjix@foo.org

always maps to

  https://foo.org/bitcoin-alias/?handle=3Dgenjix

Then forget the hardcoding of "https" the hardcoding of "bitcoin-alias" and=
=20
"?handle=3D" and the original email-looking "genjix@foo.org".  Just use the=
 URL. =20
Then the author of the service can use whatever they want.

 "Can I pay you 10 BTC?"
 "Sure, send it to 'https://bitcoinalias.foo.org/genjix/'"

While I might implement my alias server like this:

 "Sure, send it to 'https://google.com/bitcoin/?andyparkins'"
 "Sure, send it to 'https://parkins.co.uk/"

=2E.. or any other URL they want -- any of which suit might suit me and my=
=20
webserver better than whatever mapping would otherwise be hard-coded.  The=
=20
world is already very familiar with URLs so this is no more scary than the=
=20
email address.  What's more, the email address form looks _too much_ like a=
n=20
email address, and will only lead to confusion ... "send it to genjix@foo.o=
rg" =20
"so I use outlook express for that, right?"  "erm, no, you put it in your=20
bitcoin client".

The URL form could easily be made to detect a browser connecting rather tha=
n a=20
bitcoin client (and this is an area that would benefit from a standards=20
document -- define the headers and user agent triggers that an alias server=
=20
expects) and give them better instructions.

https can be specified as the default, so  "https://" can be optional when=
=20
they're typing.  If, in the future, bitcoin gets a distributed peer-to-peer=
=20
alias system, then a new URL type can be added easily "bcalias://andyparkin=
s"=20
might automatically find my node in the network and query it for an address=
=20
(or whatever).

All of the above is exactly why OpenID chose to use URLs for ID.



Andy

=2D-=20
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com

--nextPart2373416.GlT41jfGsN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk7ne6kACgkQwQJ9gE9xL22tDACfaix7dRiXPos9D0AlMjWFudpc
p0UAnRa7zpQHWCuwQnX8vH4uwQnNHq9l
=Lz35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2373416.GlT41jfGsN--