📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27
📝 Original message:> Personally, I'd like to see fewer implicit ties to X509. With X509 as one
> option.
That's pretty much what we have today - in future other schemes can be
proposed as extensions. Protocol buffers are easily extended, they
ignore unknown fields. Then you'd wait and see what the invoice
request looked like and produce an invoice with the right security
bits.
> In particular two additional identification types:
>
> - GnuPG (obviously)
It's not obvious to me, incidentally. The web of trust has been
dead-on-arrival since it was first proposed, and for good reasons.
SSL/X.509, for better or worse, has significant usage.
Your case of a small business is a perfect example of people who won't
be using GPG. If they don't want to buy an SSL cert, they can just as
well put a reference number in the memo field or a "Hey Bob, here is
the bill we discussed". The payer does not get the multi-factor auth
protection so if their computer has a virus, they may be hosed. But
that's good incentive for sellers to get verified. Some CA authorities
do it for free these days.
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 10:41:23
in reply to nevent1q…nm07
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 10:41:23Event JSON
{
"id": "3e3c61009c7f4da54f6639320770db013fb28912683b70d7f04dc564c0340265",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686134483,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5f2400f8aa8a7067be3d080f096fd7cbfeecdd6e589c178b85b63a9338150a5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"263ca5ddadb2be93cb37d30503b785b658d500e2a8db22cd2c72a2da6319c3f6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e Personally, I'd like to see fewer implicit ties to X509. With X509 as one\n\u003e option.\n\nThat's pretty much what we have today - in future other schemes can be\nproposed as extensions. Protocol buffers are easily extended, they\nignore unknown fields. Then you'd wait and see what the invoice\nrequest looked like and produce an invoice with the right security\nbits.\n\n\u003e In particular two additional identification types:\n\u003e\n\u003e - GnuPG (obviously)\n\nIt's not obvious to me, incidentally. The web of trust has been\ndead-on-arrival since it was first proposed, and for good reasons.\nSSL/X.509, for better or worse, has significant usage.\n\nYour case of a small business is a perfect example of people who won't\nbe using GPG. If they don't want to buy an SSL cert, they can just as\nwell put a reference number in the memo field or a \"Hey Bob, here is\nthe bill we discussed\". The payer does not get the multi-factor auth\nprotection so if their computer has a virus, they may be hosed. But\nthat's good incentive for sellers to get verified. Some CA authorities\ndo it for free these days.",
"sig": "8953adc36e4059f719bac3b9c53d0db8dc9eeb8377126d3bf87cc2d62b0dccd132498e143b2b67505095d5c48bf88d8987a3d55b82660c6ad021540dfffb0f0c"
}