{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18\n🗒️ Summary of this message: HTTPS requirement is debatable, but a warning message should be displayed if HTTP is used. JSON is the assumed structure for the answered message format.\n📝 Original message:I can't speak for Namecoin. As for the HTTPS requirement, I'm on the \nfence. Without it, the resolution is open to a man in the middle attack. \nPerhaps HTTPS should be required, and if HTTP is used, a large warning \nmessage is displayed.\n\nAs for the answered message format, is JSON the assumed structure that \nwould be used?\n\n\nOn 12/18/2011 1:05 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated\n\u003e to map the IP of the server by those who want to.\n\u003e Does it removes the necessity of the certificates?\n\u003e If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or\n\u003e whatever they trust.\n\u003e\n\u003e Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered\n\u003e message? I mean fields like \"amount\", \"concept\" and such.\n\u003e"}