rich1.0npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrshttps://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-12-18 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on integrating Namecoin to map server IPs using simple URI proposal. Authentication of host and negotiation of payment protocol also discussed. 📝 Original message:On Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:05:11 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. How are you going to authenticate the host? Certificates from CAs are how HTTPS does it. HTTP is vulnerable. If the URI contains an address (eg, bitcoin://remotehost/base58key), the remote host could sign its (self-signed) SSL key with the ECDSA key to prove authenticity. DNSSEC/namecoin presumably has some way to do this as well. > Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered > message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such. At some point, a proper protocol to negotiate payment is needed for anything like this.