rich1.0npub1ws7kd2knmz65wpdh2xsymr85e2lkuqhktkvfq0a8h9snt9td96ksafv6khhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ws7kd2knmz65wpdh2xsymr85e2lkuqhktkvfq0a8h9snt9td96ksafv6khnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-12-16 🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposal to enable complete user@server.com handling in Bitcoin by extending the protocol for transactions to IP addresses and enabling DNS lookups. 📝 Original message:This is the first proposal I've seen regarding mapping something like user at host that actually makes sense to me. Bitcoin itself is decentralised by design, in my opinion it seems obvious that it needs to continue to maintain this feature. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:59 AM, theymos <theymos at mm.st> wrote: > Bitcoin already has code and a protocol for transactions to IP > addresses. Why not reuse that for dynamic address lookup? Just a few > changes are necessary to enable complete user at server.com handling: > - Extend the protocol so that "reply" messages can be signed by a fixed > public key > - Extend "checkorder" messages so they can specify an account to > send BTC to. Or standardize on how to put the account into the > message field. > - Enable DNS lookups for IP transactions. The DNS-only proposals could > also be used here to avoid having to use the IP transaction protocol > sometimes. The public key for signing "reply" messages can be gotten > from TXT records. This will be safe with DNSSEC and Namecoin. With > plain DNS Bitcoin could take a SSH-like approach and ask the user to > verify the public key the first time it is used, remembering it later. > > DoS attacks are already handled by the IP transactions code: the same IP > address is always given the same bitcoin address until it pays to that > bitcoin address. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111216/f86f05de/attachment.html>