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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1RcY57-0005jw-TU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:56:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RcY52-0001Mj-7f
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:56:21 +0000
Received: by wibhq7 with SMTP id hq7so1208340wib.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:56:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.19.137 with SMTP id f9mr15119125wie.62.1324281370114; Sun,
18 Dec 2011 23:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:56:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HjyZv2y9grNdnKKG8k6tn7jdW=zL=vtrALpeW8jkuzV6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201112181644.44134.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAJna-Hhg9DO4jeuU3nEL2jJGPyxZXpeOLTQe1w8zjT6wqi+kXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20111219011417.GA16815@ulyssis.org>
<CAJna-HjyZv2y9grNdnKKG8k6tn7jdW=zL=vtrALpeW8jkuzV6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:56:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AEEzOjc2ayOJYgs_oh4RG91Dp4JSHUjyPX=qdp+ri6oSg@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: -0.4 (/)
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
0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money
-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RcY52-0001Mj-7f
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [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: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:56:22 -0000
Ok, so HTTP is not an option unless it shows a huge warning. I don't
know the HTTPS possible attack, but maybe it needs a warning message
too, from what you people are saying. Although using namecoin to
identify hosts may be the more secure option, it's integration with
the client seems more difficult and probably most clients won't
support it. Using namecoin to directly specify the payment address
seems a bad idea for most cases for the reasons that have been said.
For the "answer format" JSON seems ok, but I mean a "negotiating
protocol" like luke-jr says. I'd even include green addresses there
but probably many of you don't like the idea.
2011/12/19, slush <slush@centrum.cz>:
> And if I need to choose between easy solution or secure solution for
> aliases, I'll pick that easy one. I mean - we need some solution which will
> be easy enough for daily use; it is something what we currently don't have.
> But if I want to be really really sure I'm using correct destination for
> paying $1mil for a house, I can every time ask for real bitcoin addresses,
> this is that secure way which we currently have.
I agree.
|
