{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18\n🗒️ 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.\n📝 Original message:On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 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\nHow are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how \nHTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg, \nbitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signed) \nSSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumably \nhas some way to do this as well.\n\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\nAt some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for anything \nlike this."}