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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VIzsh-0005vp-D9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:43:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VIzsg-0004dg-7J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:43:47 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id va7so859647obc.11 for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:43:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.116.230 with SMTP id jz6mr11169521oeb.21.1378727020397; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.76.170 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 04:43:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8641358D-7484-42AF-9449-C226EF4FB6B4@grabhive.com> References: <9179D240-EE7E-41A4-AA59-7C96246D8CFB@grabhive.com> <8641358D-7484-42AF-9449-C226EF4FB6B4@grabhive.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:43:40 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: u4wTkKx2jRECulodEcbAC2OTxB8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Wendell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115e84a4b0a0404e5f1e651 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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 X-Headers-End: 1VIzsg-0004dg-7J Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Simple contacts exchange (was: Social network integration (brainstorm)) 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: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:43:47 -0000 --089e0115e84a4b0a0404e5f1e651 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The current version requires a signed cert yes. Whether that's difficult or not depends on the policies of the cert authorities. Ultimately all they have to do is verify an email address by sending it a clickable link, which is why StartSSL do it for free. Probably they aren't optimised for usability, but there's no technical reason why one couldn't be. It's a competitive market, after all. There's also the option of extending the payment protocol to support other forms of PKI. But from a technical perspective the X.509 PKI is fine. Someone can always set up their own CA for the Bitcoin community and convince wallet developers to include their root cert, after all. On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Wendell wrote: > OK, I was under the impression that this was mostly developed for > merchants. I've seen some discussion here that seemed to suggest it > requiring some non-trivial (for an end user) steps like getting a CA-signed > certificate. > > -wendell > > grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411 > > On Sep 7, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > This is the sort of thing the payment protocol is for. The recipient > would vend a PaymentRequest containing identity details. The sender would > submit a Payment containing his/hers. The wallet then understands what to > do. > > --089e0115e84a4b0a0404e5f1e651 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The current version requires a signed cert yes. Whether th= at's difficult or not depends on the policies of the cert authorities. = Ultimately all they have to do is verify an email address by sending it a c= lickable link, which is why StartSSL do it for free. Probably they aren'= ;t optimised for usability, but there's no technical reason why one cou= ldn't be. It's a competitive market, after all.

There's also the option of extending the payment protoco= l to support other forms of PKI. But from a technical perspective the X.509= PKI is fine. Someone can always set up their own CA for the Bitcoin commun= ity and convince wallet developers to include their root cert, after all.


On Mon,= Sep 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Wendell <w@grabhive.com> wrote:
OK, I was under the impression that this was mostly developed for merchants= . I've seen some discussion here that seemed to suggest it requiring so= me non-trivial (for an end user) steps like getting a CA-signed certificate= .

-wendell

grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411

On Sep 7, 2013, at 11:44 PM, = Mike Hearn wrote:

> This is the sort of thing the payment protocol is for. The recipient w= ould vend a PaymentRequest containing identity details. The sender would su= bmit a Payment containing his/hers. The wallet then understands what to do.=


--089e0115e84a4b0a0404e5f1e651--