Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

[Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1299 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mark van Cuijk <mark@coinqy.com> wrote:

> Good to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been
> postponed.
>

I'm not sure postponed is the right word. It wasn't in v1, but many useful
things weren't. It's more like, a bunch of people have to do work to
upgrade this and at the moment they're all busy with other things.


> I do like the idea coined by Mike that a PP can issue non-SSL certificates
> for the purpose of merchant identification, as long as a customer is free
> to determine whether he trusts the PP for this purpose.
>

I don't think I proposed this exactly? It's the other way around - a
merchant issues an extension cert to allow the PP to act on their behalf.


> Regarding the choice of how to authenticate the PP, I’m a bit
> undetermined. Disregarding backward compatibility, I think the extended
> certificate system proposed by Mike is cleaner. However, I don’t like the
> concept of requiring two separate signatures for old and new clients.
> Taking backward compatibility in mind, I tend to prefer my proposal.
>

I'm not sure I understand. Your proposal also has two signatures. Indeed it
must because delegation of authority requires a signature, but old clients
won't understand it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2070 bytes --]