rich1.0npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2https://nostr.ae/npub18yq2ukhtlnkuzzykluyjvxap3vtvdqf0arvtag6rx02klk6gymgqp3txp2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18 🗒️ 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. 📝 Original message:I can't speak for Namecoin. As for the HTTPS requirement, I'm on the fence. Without it, the resolution is open to a man in the middle attack. Perhaps HTTPS should be required, and if HTTP is used, a large warning message is displayed. As for the answered message format, is JSON the assumed structure that would be used? On 12/18/2011 1:05 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. > > Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered > message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such. >