From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RbLiJ-0006Rc-6m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:31:51 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RbLiF-00040e-9s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:31:51 +0000 Received: by eaal1 with SMTP id l1so3600257eaa.34 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:31:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.151.75 with SMTP id b11mr2484725bkw.26.1323994110210; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:08:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: marek@palatinus.cz Received: by 10.204.168.15 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:07:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201112131622.08158.andyparkins@gmail.com> References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1323791208.31194.YahooMailNeo@web121013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201112131622.08158.andyparkins@gmail.com> From: slush Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:07:58 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ELpUqddG4cW0ype8RoPsCxnyLkg Message-ID: To: Andy Parkins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175dd9d09fb33f04b42a6651 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (slush[at]centrum.cz) 0.0 HS_INDEX_PARAM URI: Link contains a common tracker pattern. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 2.5 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails X-Headers-End: 1RbLiF-00040e-9s 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 00:31:51 -0000 --0015175dd9d09fb33f04b42a6651 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I really like this proposal with standard URLs. All other proposals like DNS mapping or email aliases converted to URLs with some weird logic looks strange to me. Plain URLs (returning address in response body, redirecting to URI "bitcoin:
" or anything else) are very clear solution, easy to implement in clients and very easy to understand by people. It's also extremely flexible - almost everybody can somewhere setup static file containing his "personal" addresses or it's very easy to integrate such solution with eshops (providing custom address for given order) etc. I'm definitely for this solution. Best, slush On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Andy Parkins wrote: > On 2011 December 13 Tuesday, Amir Taaki wrote: > > > Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the document, but this is the intent with > > the HTTPS proposal. > > I don't like the idea of a hard-coded mapping at all. We shouldn't be > making > choices on behalf of server operators. It's up to them how they arrange > their > domain names and paths. > > I also agree that DNS is not the technology to use. DNS is a nightmare. > > > genjix@foo.org > > > > Contacts https://foo.org/bitcoin-alias/?handle=genjix and the system > > responds with a bitcoin address. Whether the system gives you a new > > address from a pool of addresses, or contacts the merchant behind the > > scenes is implementation defined. > > > > I'll clarify it later. This is the relevant line: > > > > string strRequestUrl = strDomain + "/bitcoin-alias/?handle=" + > > pszEncodedNick; > > > > Between HTTPS service and server service, I lean slightly towards HTTPS > > (automatic encrypted connection, CAs + all benefits of DNS). But still > > interested in arguments in favour of a server service (daemon answering > > queries). > > Why bother with an encoding scheme at all? If the address > > genjix@foo.org > > always maps to > > https://foo.org/bitcoin-alias/?handle=genjix > > Then forget the hardcoding of "https" the hardcoding of "bitcoin-alias" and > "?handle=" and the original email-looking "genjix@foo.org". Just use the > URL. > Then the author of the service can use whatever they want. > > "Can I pay you 10 BTC?" > "Sure, send it to 'https://bitcoinalias.foo.org/genjix/'" > > While I might implement my alias server like this: > > "Sure, send it to 'https://google.com/bitcoin/?andyparkins'" > "Sure, send it to 'https://parkins.co.uk/" > > ... or any other URL they want -- any of which suit might suit me and my > webserver better than whatever mapping would otherwise be hard-coded. The > world is already very familiar with URLs so this is no more scary than the > email address. What's more, the email address form looks _too much_ like > an > email address, and will only lead to confusion ... "send it to > genjix@foo.org" > "so I use outlook express for that, right?" "erm, no, you put it in your > bitcoin client". > > The URL form could easily be made to detect a browser connecting rather > than a > bitcoin client (and this is an area that would benefit from a standards > document -- define the headers and user agent triggers that an alias server > expects) and give them better instructions. > > https can be specified as the default, so "https://" can be optional when > they're typing. If, in the future, bitcoin gets a distributed peer-to-peer > alias system, then a new URL type can be added easily > "bcalias://andyparkins" > might automatically find my node in the network and query it for an address > (or whatever). > > All of the above is exactly why OpenID chose to use URLs for ID. > > > > Andy > > -- > Dr Andy Parkins > andyparkins@gmail.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Systems Optimization Self Assessment > Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and > improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization > Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --0015175dd9d09fb33f04b42a6651 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I really like this proposal with standard URLs. All other proposals like DN= S mapping or email aliases converted to URLs with some weird logic looks st= range to me.

Plain URLs (returning address in response b= ody, redirecting to URI "bitcoin:<address>" or anything els= e) are very clear solution, easy to implement in clients and very easy to u= nderstand by people. It's also extremely flexible - almost everybody ca= n somewhere setup static file containing his "personal" addresses= or it's very easy to integrate such solution with eshops (providing cu= stom address for given order) etc. I'm definitely for this solution.
Best,
slush

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> w= rote:
On 2011 December 13 Tuesda= y, Amir Taaki wrote:

> Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the document, but this is the inten= t with
> the HTTPS proposal.

I don't like the idea of a hard-coded mapping at all. =A0We shoul= dn't be making
choices on behalf of server operators. =A0It's up to them how they arra= nge their
domain names and paths.

I also agree that DNS is not the technology to use. =A0DNS is a nightmare.<= br>

> genjix@foo.org
>
> Contacts https://foo.org/bitcoin-alias/?handle=3Dgenjix and the = system
> responds with a bitcoin address. Whether the system gives you a new > address from a pool of addresses, or contacts the merchant behind the<= br> > scenes is implementation defined.
>
> I'll clarify it later. This is the relevant line:
>
> string strRequestUrl =3D strDomain + "/bitcoin-alias/?handle=3D&q= uot; +
> pszEncodedNick;
>
> Between HTTPS service and server service, I lean slightly towards HTTP= S
> (automatic encrypted connection, CAs + all benefits of DNS). But still=
> interested in arguments in favour of a server service (daemon answerin= g
> queries).

Why bother with an encoding scheme at all? =A0If the address

=A0genjix@foo.org

always maps to

=A0https://foo.org/bitcoin-alias/?handle=3Dgenjix

Then forget the hardcoding of "https" the hardcoding of "bit= coin-alias" and
"?handle=3D" and the original email-looking "genjix@foo.org". =A0Just use the URL.
Then the author of the service can use whatever they want.

=A0"Can I pay you 10 BTC?"
=A0"Sure, send it to 'https://bitcoinalias.foo.org/genjix/'"<= br>
While I might implement my alias server like this:

=A0"Sure, send it to 'https://google.com/bitcoin/?andyparkins'&= quot;
=A0"Sure, send it to 'https://parkins.co.uk/"

... or any other URL they want -- any of which suit might suit me and my webserver better than whatever mapping would otherwise be hard-coded. =A0Th= e
world is already very familiar with URLs so this is no more scary than the<= br> email address. =A0What's more, the email address form looks _too much_ = like an
email address, and will only lead to confusion ... "send it to genjix@foo.org"
"so I use outlook express for that, right?" =A0"erm, no, you= put it in your
bitcoin client".

The URL form could easily be made to detect a browser connecting rather tha= n a
bitcoin client (and this is an area that would benefit from a standards
document -- define the headers and user agent triggers that an alias server=
expects) and give them better instructions.

https can be specified as the default, so =A0"https://" can be op= tional when
they're typing. =A0If, in the future, bitcoin gets a distributed peer-t= o-peer
alias system, then a new URL type can be added easily "bcalias://andyp= arkins"
might automatically find my node in the network and query it for an address=
(or whatever).

All of the above is exactly why OpenID chose to use URLs for ID.



Andy

--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------
Systems Optimization Self Assessment
Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and
improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--0015175dd9d09fb33f04b42a6651--