rich1.0npub1pa6l5jatv92d4vzk566r58zjawpuu0we8nhrywfhp90f9948e0tsx3rxtphttps://nostr.ae/npub1pa6l5jatv92d4vzk566r58zjawpuu0we8nhrywfhp90f9948e0tsx3rxtpnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-04 📝 Original message:> > The goal of writing a BIP seems to be to get lots of different wallet > authors to write lots of code for you - but I *am* a wallet author, and I > don't think that's the right way to get traction with a new scheme. > I started without a BIP and the feedback I got is that I should to a BIP. We cannot write all the code for all the wallets ; this is after all a communauty project. However we have and we will propose bounties for each wallet to support natively the protocol. > For instance the TREZOR guys would have to support your new protocol > otherwise if I paid my hotel bill with my TREZOR I couldn't open the door > when I got there! But they probably have better things to be doing right > now. > Yes you are right. But if the concept of authenticating yourself gets traction, they will probably do it. > The key difference between just generating a client certificate and using > a Bitcoin address is that the client certificate is something that is used > *specifically* for identification. It leaves no trace in the block chain, > so no weird privacy issues, it doesn't matter how you manage your wallet, > and you don't have to persuade lots of people to support your idea because > it was already done >10 years ago and basically every browser/web server > supports it. > My view on this is mainly about the UX and the fact everyone in Bitcoinland has a wallet. It's a approach leveraging this fact, with the possibility to build interesting apps combining address auth and the blockchain. I understand the problems related to multisig, contracts etc, There is no such thing as a from address in a transaction, however many services still take first tx as the return address. People will always find way of building and doing stuff (cf the message in the blockchain debate). > Some reasons client certs aren't more widely used boil down to: > > 1. People like passwords. In particular they like forgetting them and > then having friendly people assist them to get it back. Client certs can > support this use case, but only if apps are checking the identity in them > and not the key. > 2. The UI for managing client certs in browsers is pretty horrible. > There's little incentive to improve it because of (1). > 3. Cross-device sync doesn't work very well. Apple are starting to > tackle this with their iCloud Keychain Sync service but then of course, > Apple has all your keys and you may well just sign in to things with your > Apple account (if it were to be supported). Cross-device sync where the > server *doesn't* get your keys is supported by Chrome for passwords, > but not client certs, because (1) > > None of the above issues have any obvious fix lurking within Bitcoin. > There is also the benefit of revocation with certificate and central authority. But, again, you already have a wallet and a Bitcoin address. So if you add a simple auth protocol, people will use it at no cost. Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140404/9e6d4ffc/attachment.html>