1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <walter.stanish@gmail.com>) id 1RaUhy-0001R3-JE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:55:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.175; envelope-from=walter.stanish@gmail.com;
helo=mail-iy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RaUhs-0004P3-QZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:55:58 +0000
Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so13187527iad.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:55:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.17.165 with SMTP id p5mr19945713igd.84.1323791747596; Tue,
13 Dec 2011 07:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Sender: walter.stanish@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.151.69 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:55:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALxbBHUgCOVMRxtnsmC2W-MaYfeDSzaftWMCCgcWsMBdZfzPQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAGQP0AGvq603oshSGiP79A+gqDqW_hHG+qZjaZccCmo+gd3W2A@mail.gmail.com>
<201112121841.39864.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGQP0AGBKKEqhaJZj-Rw400AjrVHE9_EMve=RWdqoaOaDsTgtw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AGY32QP=rXyGftb5NbHA7fhcCne7W=pt5+onXp1Jbm98Q@mail.gmail.com>
<1323736946.58149.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CANEZrP1oPaqAT+LCfrAXO9WBz+oC2uvbP=5vx2+DX2P0qFusgA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALxbBHUgCOVMRxtnsmC2W-MaYfeDSzaftWMCCgcWsMBdZfzPQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:55:47 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: v1kODiLPbnijglAxMP2RMSX92qg
Message-ID: <CACwuEiNO=pSfgD415-5=HnaXdXbZ++Ps0n4cyjckLRRP-tJemA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>
To: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(walter.stanish[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
X-Headers-End: 1RaUhs-0004P3-QZ
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 15:55:58 -0000
Interesting thread.
Given the following paragraph and the limited feedback garnered upon
its announcement to this list last month, I couldn't help but chime in
again to mention IIBAN, an Internet Standards Draft available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iiban-00 (A related proposal for
internet connected financial market identification, IMIC, is also
available: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-imic-00) which - fair
declaration of bias - I authored on behalf of my employer, Payward
Inc., while working on Bitcoin-related development.
> I think the scope of this BIP is not so well defined right now. We need a
> way for merchants to translate a human readable, and more importantly
> human-writeable, address into a bitcoin address.
I believe that IIBAN solves this problem fairly elegantly:
(1) Mature transposition error detection (think "Oops, that's a zero
not an 'oh'! I wrote it wrong!"). This functions via checksum digits
using a known algorithm, leveraging decades of experience in
conventional financial institutions. The same functionality provides
for simple suggested error correction on common transposition errors
(0->O, 1->I, etc.).
(2) Fixed length.
(3) Far shorter than both bitcoin addresses and many national bank
account numbers at 13 characters (less than half of the size of a
bitcoin address).
(4) Fewer characters (no lowercase), resulting in less transposition
issues and greater legibility.
(5) Superset-compatible with existing financial networks utilizing the
IBAN standard (mandated in Europe, increasingly popular elsewhere),
resulting in greater ease of uptake.
(5) Centralized, delegatable namespace allocation but with clear rules
governing allocation that aim to minimize potential room for any
potential abuse of power.
(6) Settlement system neutral - ie: not bitcoin-centric. By leaving
Bitcoin to be Bitcoin, Bitcoin developers can focus on core concerns
rather than becoming embroiled in formatting and user experience
concerns. Also, a single address could be paid via multiple channels
(conventional financial systems, bitcoin, LETS systems, etc.)
resulting in greater ease of uptake and higher user confidence over
time since published banking information is no longer held hostage to
the assumed longevity, liquidity, legality or other liabilities of an
individual settlement system (such as Bitcoin).
(7) Provides defined private address spaces for internal transfers
(eg: within an organization's own systems, for financial simulations,
MMORPGs, etc.) and a documentation/public works of fiction address
space to address common usage concerns in similar network addressing
schemes.
(8) Heterogeneous management of different parts of the address space.
Whilst the proposed IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
management of IIBAN's initial institution namespace is indeed
centralized and will no doubt raise eyebrows from within parts of the
community for that reason alone, the IIBAN draft is liberal in its
assignment policy, which can be viewed within the draft document
linked to above, and whose terms are binding for IANA. It's also
worth noting that four of the most similar global systems deployed
today, SWIFT's BIC and IBAN, the ITU's E.164 international telephone
numbering scheme and IANA's IP address space management are
implemented as similar centralized-but-delegated style schemes.
Furthermore, due to the flat nature of the registry, a
http://convergence.io/ style 'trust agility' model (ie: multiple
'centralized' parties share their network view, and user-prioritized
source consensus/acceptance/approval determine end-user perspective)
is wholly compatible.
In closing, a quick mention that a new version of the IIBAN draft will
be released very shortly including a draft IIBAN institutions registry
that will be established in order to facilitate implementation and
testing. Drop me an email if you'd like a portion of the address space
and your early assignment will appear within that draft.
Regards,
Walter Stanish
Payward, Inc.
|
