[Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases

[Luke-Jr]

On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated
> to map the IP of the server by those who want to.
> Does it removes the necessity of the certificates?
> If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or
> whatever they trust.

How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how 
HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg, 
bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signed) 
SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumably 
has some way to do this as well.

> Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered
> message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such.

At some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for anything 
like this.