Author: Thomas Voegtlin 2015-07-19 11:18:29
Published on: 2015-07-19T11:18:29+00:00
The author of the email is proposing to extend BIP70 in order to bring the benefits of public proof of payment request to user-to-user transactions. He believes that one of the main barriers to BIP70 adoption lies in the fact that bitcoin URIs have been extended in a way that requires the request to be hosted on a webserver. However, he feels that creating a store-and-forward network is not necessary and proposes the use of DNSSEC for BIP70 due to its canonical way of downloading the chain of signatures needed to verify a record. Furthermore, the author believes that SSL certificates could also be used to create lightweight payment requests if the final signing key is an EC key and if the payment request does not include the whole chain of certificates. However, using SSL certificates would require additional infrastructure to publish the chain of certificates and x509 certification paths are not unique, although it is not impossible. In response to another email about NetKi and email certificates, the author suggests that any proposal in this space has to be an open standard and discusses how DKIM setup can be used without actually offering email accounts. The holdup in getting PaymentRequest's from one end user to another appears to be the lack of a store-and-forward network for signed payment requests. The author would like to see a way for a domain to delegate BIP70 signing power to a third party, such as payment processors like BitPay, being able to sign on behalf of the merchant. However, existing identity providers either do not care about Bitcoin or are developing competitors to it. Therefore, solutions that do not require identity provider cooperation make more sense to the author.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T02:33:25.439648+00:00