Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on integrating Namecoin to map server IPs using simple URI proposal. Authentication of host and negotiation of payment protocol also discussed.
📝 Original message: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.
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on integrating Namecoin to map server IPs using simple URI proposal. Authentication of host and negotiation of payment protocol also discussed.
📝 Original message: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.