From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RbdMQ-0007pa-OE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:22:26 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RbdMP-00063X-LM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:22:26 +0000 Received: by vbbfc21 with SMTP id fc21so3856623vbb.34 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:22:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.94.18 with SMTP id cy18mr7283482vdb.24.1324063340076; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:22:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.37.80 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:22:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201112161710.15165.andyparkins@gmail.com> <1324060177.10146.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:22:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: Rick Wesson To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RbdMP-00063X-LM 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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:22:26 -0000 Agreed, I find measured dialog much more valuable. I also agree that standards take time and are messy, though choosing a standard allows additional participation and can drive interopability. One does not need to accept IBANN but we should participate in the dialog in its development. internet-drafts don't make it through the process unchanged. IBANN is a starting point not the end of the discussion. -rick On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > First: everybody please try to focus on the issues/ideas, and try to > avoid this becoming a flame war. > > Second: I think Walter Stanish made several good points that may have > been missed in all the long posts and discussion, the main one being: > > The banking industry has been dealing with many of these issues for > years; I think we should not dismiss their experience. > > I think there is also a huge public relations benefit to using a > standard like IIBAN instead of inventing our own. Having a Bitcoin > Payment Routing Address (or whatever it ends up being called) that > looks like the number issues by big financial institutions will give > people the warm fuzzies. > > I don't really care what happens behind the scenes, as long as it is > as secure as an HTTPS connection (RE: CA pwnage: =A0there's no such > thing as perfect security, and until a more secure solution comes > along HTTPS is the best we've got). > > And I'll reiterate that there doesn't have to be just one solution. > > My only concern is that IIBAN is Yet Another Fledgling Standard, and > those little details that remain to be worked out could take years to > actually work out. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Learn Windows Azure Live! =A0Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 > Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for > developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what i= t > provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. > Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development