{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xz8q68hmzur6c6uje593nscy3q4njx05h4vnxmz2wxxptx7u7casl2925u","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xz8q68hmzur6c6uje593nscy3q4njx05h4vnxmz2wxxptx7u7casl2925u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26\n📝 Original message:I hope you all take a moment to see what DANE leverages with DNSSEC\nand SelfSigned x.509 certs. DANE provides the capability for any\nentity to associate a self signed certificate with a domain name. This\ncapability removes the critical path of whitelists and/or Root CA\ncerts.\n\nAnother nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a\npayment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)\n\nNow I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,\nbut as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if\nmy identity and those of my transactions were \"known\" and associated\nboth with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions\n(which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is\nimportant, at least for the merchant.\n\n-rick\n\n\nOn Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at exmulti.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e This is the next big \"lets all agree to do things the same way\" thing\n\u003e\u003e I think we should tackle. I'm particularly looking for feedback from\n\u003e\u003e other bitcoin client developers, even if it is just a quick \"looks\n\u003e\u003e reasonable, if everybody else is going to do it then I will\n\u003e\u003e (eventually) too...\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Comments:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) Payment message should include ability to specify the transaction\n\u003e _or_ a transaction id sent via normal means over the network.\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) I think a significant bitcoin userbase will want to operate outside\n\u003e the full root-CA chain.  Just look at https:// websites now.\n\u003e Self-signed certs are quite common, because it is easier, while being\n\u003e more secure than http://\n\u003e\n\u003e So some provision for self-signed certs, a use case in wide use\n\u003e elsewhere, or equivalent thereof, seems reasonable.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Jeff Garzik\n\u003e exMULTI, Inc.\n\u003e jgarzik at exmulti.com\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single\n\u003e web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware,\n\u003e SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.\n\u003e Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications!\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development"}