d6a47806130b6464736c4c9c3f5860aedea24e
1 Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org> 2 Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org 3 [172.17.192.35]) 4 by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEB4687A 5 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 6 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:13:52 +0000 (UTC) 7 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 8 Received: from outmail149084.authsmtp.net (outmail149084.authsmtp.net 9 [62.13.149.84]) 10 by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C8A13A 11 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 12 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:13:52 +0000 (UTC) 13 Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247]) 14 by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5LMDpCO003781; 15 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:13:51 +0100 (BST) 16 Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com 17 [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) 18 by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5LMDnMv060033 19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 20 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:13:50 +0100 (BST) 21 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 22 by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D5C24010B; 23 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:11:46 +0000 (UTC) 24 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) 25 id B86BD20217; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:13:47 -0400 (EDT) 26 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:13:47 -0400 27 From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> 28 To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>, 29 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 30 Message-ID: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> 31 References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com> 32 MIME-Version: 1.0 33 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; 34 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5" 35 Content-Disposition: inline 36 In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com> 37 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) 38 X-Server-Quench: 6ea96b99-37fd-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198 39 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: 40 http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse 41 X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR 42 aAdMdAMUEkAaAgsB AmAbWVdeUV57XGM7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq 43 T0pMXVMcUQAUfGhf e1geVBlydAYIfXZ4 YQhkCyFSWhZzfFt+ 44 RRgACGwHMGF9OjNL BV1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z 45 GA41ejw8IwAXBTpY REkIKkgfCV4RGSY7 XB0OVR8OJQUIVzk+ 46 KQcnLVgHVFoWem8T CRN5AQ1AWwA8 47 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706 48 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) 49 X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 50 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own 51 anti-virus system. 52 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 53 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 54 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on 55 smtp1.linux-foundation.org 56 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070 57 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 58 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 59 Precedence: list 60 List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> 61 List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 62 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> 63 List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> 64 List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 65 List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> 66 List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 67 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> 68 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:13:53 -0000 69 70 71 --O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5 72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 73 Content-Disposition: inline 74 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 75 76 On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:33:32PM +0000, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wro= 77 te: 78 > BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO: 79 >=20 80 > - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility = 81 is 82 > desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too late 83 > to support JSON messages as the standard going forward 84 >=20 85 > - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole form 86 > of mechant identification. alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp and 87 > possibly keybase seem like good ideas. personally, i like keybase, since 88 > there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can sell with 89 > a github id, for example) 90 >=20 91 > - missing an optional client supplied identification 92 93 Note that "client supplied identification" is being pushed for AML/KYC 94 compliance, e.g. Netki's AML/KYC compliance product: 95 96 http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-identity-company-netki-launch-ssl-certif= 97 icate-blockchain/ 98 99 This is an extremely undesirable feature to be baking into standards given = 100 it's 101 negative impact on fungibility and privacy; we should not be adopting stand= 102 ards 103 with AML/KYC support, for much the same reasons that the W3C should not be 104 standardizing DRM. 105 106 --=20 107 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 108 109 --O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5 110 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" 111 Content-Description: Digital signature 112 113 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 114 115 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXabwYAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yxk4H/ij5A+OCAOHga1YCDUZqi5mX 116 MNIF/n9TKmAMMOUaBwdRwX8UBiZndnVWSdzfTYmUCgCzGbCTRtO9LQbKsR5tEOqN 117 rDvg/Q+FfTZbcedHBsnTsE2IzDCov3wjsxqoSwdsW9GJT4EE1um2CwysA189V40o 118 2jYmXw0c1VOvgfFfj/b3XbQGl4eEx3zaCRTQNbT5hihynH6tiAGuPYXs4EJeQokQ 119 hYjZ0cFZZioT+ecQtiGTPWZLanfYreTAEUmFvpdPEbKZW9Q7Eo3VGzbE8rzMGHCE 120 JhtcHpUKgXCZxwPczEluI6gMv6br+bfJ9q4eeb8fjU6vSHOqJHTrw+ATxH1ulLw= 121 =booV 122 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 123 124 --O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5-- 125