From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rb6eO-0002pz-A2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.175; envelope-from=walter.stanish@gmail.com; helo=mail-iy0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rb6eK-00015O-BS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:48 +0000 Received: by iadj38 with SMTP id j38so3247215iad.34 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:26:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.72.135 with SMTP id o7mr1922819icj.45.1323937598980; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:26:38 -0800 (PST) Sender: walter.stanish@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.151.69 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:26:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1323929094.37881.YahooMailClassic@web120902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:26:38 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Rhb3SsXET3CkIppHWLBQk0g_-_4 Message-ID: From: Walter Stanish To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) 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 (walter.stanish[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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 0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rb6eK-00015O-BS Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:26:48 -0000 >> Why don't just... >> >> bitcoin://url.without.explicitly.specifying.provider >> bitcoin://alias@provider >> bitcoin://IIBAN@authorizedBitcoinInstitution ?? > Andy sounded very convincing when talking in favor of URLs. What's > wrong with his proposal? A URI identifies a resource and is in effect an alias itself. Identifying a resource is different from interacting with it. So, while :// will work sufficiently for the identification, it does not explain the interaction. Interaction is a requirement, since there seems to be a widely felt need to preserve anonymity through the use of temporary addresses. Generating a temporary address requires some actual processing to achieve, since the issuing of the new address cannot be done without interacting with the entity hosting the wallet (unless I'm missing something?). > By the way, I don't like the fact that a single authorized institution > needs to map the IIBANs to bitcoin addresses. This is not the case. Please read my earlier response to Gavin and the IIBAN specification itself to clarify. That would be a total breach of privacy since the entity would have access to financial information on all transactions using the IIBAN identifiers... prior to transactions being executed. It *is* true that under the current IIBAN proposal there would be one entity (IANA) in charge of issuing namespace portions ('institution codes' - probably best to rename these...), however: - The policy is strict and something similar to 'give one out to anyone except existing financial instutions with the pre-existing capacity to issue IBAN'. - IANA have a pretty reasonable track record - This suggestion, like the entire proposal, is open for discussion and modification. If you can think of a more efficient and fair way of assigning namespace prefixes to random entities on the internet that doesn't require someone *without* an established track record of doing this for the internet community to take up IANA's place, then I'd be happy to hear it. Whilst a bitcoin-like 'community consensus' system is conceivably possible to deploy in its place, I don't think it's necessary. Regards, Walter Stanish Payward, Inc.