{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e This is the next big \"lets all agree to do things the same way\" thing\n\u003e I think we should tackle. I'm particularly looking for feedback from\n\u003e other bitcoin client developers, even if it is just a quick \"looks\n\u003e reasonable, if everybody else is going to do it then I will\n\u003e (eventually) too...\"\n\nComments:\n\n1) Payment message should include ability to specify the transaction\n_or_ a transaction id sent via normal means over the network.\n\n2) I think a significant bitcoin userbase will want to operate outside\nthe full root-CA chain.  Just look at https:// websites now.\nSelf-signed certs are quite common, because it is easier, while being\nmore secure than http://\n\nSo some provision for self-signed certs, a use case in wide use\nelsewhere, or equivalent thereof, seems reasonable.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com"}