rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27 📝 Original message:RE: SignedReceipt: I agree it is superfluous. I'll remove it from the spec. RE: "it is controversial use of the host key to use it for digital signing of documents" : The idea of embedding a x509 certificate chain comes from the IETF's JSON Object Signing and Encryption working group "JWS" specification, so I can't be TOO controversial. RE: the ifex-project and other electronic invoicing standards: Thanks for the pointers, Walter! I'm all for adopting the best ideas that have come before, as long as we end up with something useful and small enough to convince ourselves it is as secure as we can make it. I looked at the ifex spec, and quickly got lost. It would help me if you could write up what our motivating use cases would look like if implemented on top of ifex. RE: jgarzik's suggestion to allow txids in the Payment: that worries me, because it is trivial to create several different variations of the same transaction (same inputs to same outputs) with different txids (re-signing inputs uses a different signature nonce, which changes the signature/txid, for example). RE: using self-signed certificates: as Mike said, I assume Bitcoin clients will have some way of managing root certificates, so experts could add trusted self-signed certs. -- -- Gavin Andresen