rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:33:32PM +0000, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO: > > - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility is > desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too late > to support JSON messages as the standard going forward > > - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole form > of mechant identification. alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp and > possibly keybase seem like good ideas. personally, i like keybase, since > there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can sell with > a github id, for example) > > - missing an optional client supplied identification Note that "client supplied identification" is being pushed for AML/KYC compliance, e.g. Netki's AML/KYC compliance product: http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-identity-company-netki-launch-ssl-certificate-blockchain/ This is an extremely undesirable feature to be baking into standards given it's negative impact on fungibility and privacy; we should not be adopting standards with AML/KYC support, for much the same reasons that the W3C should not be standardizing DRM. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160621/5e89e377/attachment.sig>