📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on integrating Namecoin to map server IPs using simple URI proposal. Authentication of host and negotiation of payment protocol also discussed.
📝 Original message:On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated
> to map the IP of the server by those who want to.
> Does it removes the necessity of the certificates?
> If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or
> whatever they trust.
How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how
HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg,
bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signed)
SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumably
has some way to do this as well.
> Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered
> message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such.
At some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for anything
like this.
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 02:43:58
in reply to nevent1q…lql5
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 02:43:58Event JSON
{
"id": "2caccb86e3ce91956e4902da120435458fc87a88880dd50ee2895df832f8f55e",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686105838,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"247922e9146ee6b54a634fc05ad7a489892c01debcd0510d008be95a47f6db80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8bab18ae787be9521c73724bdd9c2509d619413760c93c02dd7d8320db64a69f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3900ae5aebfcedc10896ff09261ba18b16c6812fe8d8bea34333d56fdb4826d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on integrating Namecoin to map server IPs using simple URI proposal. Authentication of host and negotiation of payment protocol also discussed.\n📝 Original message:On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 PM Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated\n\u003e to map the IP of the server by those who want to.\n\u003e Does it removes the necessity of the certificates?\n\u003e If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or\n\u003e whatever they trust.\n\nHow are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how \nHTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg, \nbitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signed) \nSSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumably \nhas some way to do this as well.\n\n\u003e Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered\n\u003e message? I mean fields like \"amount\", \"concept\" and such.\n\nAt some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for anything \nlike this.",
"sig": "2f6cd91992ba8b4f997fd0630325539efdabbb727b0ef5107b6b6f82ca59d21160d29d1408b9258e328579b189bce38e8c8ab3f59006024ee871b3229b421d40"
}