It is a lot easier to set up an HTTP server to dynamically respond with addresses than a DNS record. It is considered a good practice to use a different address for every payment.

------------------------
"It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us, Wikipedia has become an indispensable part of our daily lives."
— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

Help protect it now. Please make a donation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

--- On Wed, 12/14/11, Kyle Henderson <k@old.school.nz> wrote:

From: Kyle Henderson <k@old.school.nz>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
To: "Zell Faze" <zellfaze@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>, "Rick Wesson" <rick@support-intelligence.com>, bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 11:56 PM

Just so we're clear, what is the need for HTTP at all?

A query for a string and an answer can all be handled via DNS.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Zell Faze <zellfaze@yahoo.com> wrote:

Could we combine this proposal and the HTTPS proposal?

The DNSSEC TXT record could give instructions on how to query an HTTPS server to get the address. Then we get the dynamism of HTTPS without having a rigid URL scheme for querying the server along with the advantages of DNSSEC.