📅 Original date posted:2014-02-19
📝 Original message:Thanks for the feedback guys!
I would also like to understand the problems you've been having with
certificates in node.js. FYI the CA cert is *not* supposed to be included,
this matches what the code in Bitcoin Core and bitcoinj expects. It may be
that Bitcoin Core accepts a redundant CA cert being provided, but if so
that'd fall in the category of openssl being generous. If there are issues
here, it sounds like an issue with node and not the spec. I'm not even sure
why it would matter - certs are just byte arrays so if node can sign a hash
with a private key, the rest should be easy.
With regards to the PKI I'd appreciate it if we don't go around that circle
again. Please remember one of the primary goals of all of this is to show
to the user on their hardware wallet a meaningful name. Almost all
merchants on the Internet already went through the process of associating a
public key with their name, using X.509.
Whilst for now your payment requests will have to be signed as BitPay, this
isn't ideal for the longer term and I'd like to design a protocol extension
to allow merchants to delegate their signature authority to you. In this
way they would be able to sign a secondary key with their own ssl key as
part of the enrolment process, and after that you could sign payment
requests on their behalf. Kind of like a Bitcoin specific subcert (and
there would be no reason to use X.509 format for that).
Re: feedback url. How is this different to a result code in PaymentAck
which already caused much debate? Surely we want a payment to either work
out boy work and for that decision to be made immediately? Your invoice
page switches to a completed state once you see a tx be broadcast so that's
the "done" state today even if there are caveats. I'd like to see a status
code added to PaymentAck so receivers can reject payments if they are bad
in some way.
On 19 Feb 2014 19:41, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Andreas Schildbach
> <andreas at schildbach.de> wrote:
> > On 02/18/2014 08:14 PM, Ryan X. Charles wrote:
> >> BitPay is working on a new standard
> >> based on bitcoin-like addresses for authentication. It would be great if
> >> we could work with the community to establish a complete, decentralized
> >> authentication protocol.
> >
> > Sounds interesting, let us know as soon as you have anything.
>
> SINs. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Identity_protocol_v1
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
> Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
> Read the Whitepaper.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140219/26590536/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:13:47
in reply to nevent1q…swuj
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:13:47Event JSON
{
"id": "96cfc5f8468c2f5314d095da5f255413e3b02afcbf50d8aae12742edf48ad03d",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686150827,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"60f789363ff39317a43c7819090e7091a49f0155f4597ebcc0977b391d35a9eb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"48dd6586d8db44f11af8580428f00afbd3759d44373db6674f241571a2c5f713",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-02-19\n📝 Original message:Thanks for the feedback guys!\n\nI would also like to understand the problems you've been having with\ncertificates in node.js. FYI the CA cert is *not* supposed to be included,\nthis matches what the code in Bitcoin Core and bitcoinj expects. It may be\nthat Bitcoin Core accepts a redundant CA cert being provided, but if so\nthat'd fall in the category of openssl being generous. If there are issues\nhere, it sounds like an issue with node and not the spec. I'm not even sure\nwhy it would matter - certs are just byte arrays so if node can sign a hash\nwith a private key, the rest should be easy.\n\nWith regards to the PKI I'd appreciate it if we don't go around that circle\nagain. Please remember one of the primary goals of all of this is to show\nto the user on their hardware wallet a meaningful name. Almost all\nmerchants on the Internet already went through the process of associating a\npublic key with their name, using X.509.\n\nWhilst for now your payment requests will have to be signed as BitPay, this\nisn't ideal for the longer term and I'd like to design a protocol extension\nto allow merchants to delegate their signature authority to you. In this\nway they would be able to sign a secondary key with their own ssl key as\npart of the enrolment process, and after that you could sign payment\nrequests on their behalf. Kind of like a Bitcoin specific subcert (and\nthere would be no reason to use X.509 format for that).\n\nRe: feedback url. How is this different to a result code in PaymentAck\nwhich already caused much debate? Surely we want a payment to either work\nout boy work and for that decision to be made immediately? Your invoice\npage switches to a completed state once you see a tx be broadcast so that's\nthe \"done\" state today even if there are caveats. I'd like to see a status\ncode added to PaymentAck so receivers can reject payments if they are bad\nin some way.\n On 19 Feb 2014 19:41, \"Jeff Garzik\" \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Andreas Schildbach\n\u003e \u003candreas at schildbach.de\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On 02/18/2014 08:14 PM, Ryan X. Charles wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e BitPay is working on a new standard\n\u003e \u003e\u003e based on bitcoin-like addresses for authentication. It would be great if\n\u003e \u003e\u003e we could work with the community to establish a complete, decentralized\n\u003e \u003e\u003e authentication protocol.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Sounds interesting, let us know as soon as you have anything.\n\u003e\n\u003e SINs. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Identity_protocol_v1\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Jeff Garzik\n\u003e Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\n\u003e BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications\n\u003e Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.\n\u003e Read the Whitepaper.\n\u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140219/26590536/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "53e6e87c1f4a042121b59ff702cbfed47a8999dc80f282ba6cb937c4191c161ab182cf58381c30a8c45888aae3aa2164e191853a2e8f7d120fd06d245021012b"
}