Paysats: Well-Known Bitcoin Identity Endpoint Draft BIP

pull down to refresh

Paysats: Well-Known Bitcoin Identity Endpoint Draft BIP - aviv57 github.com/aviv57/paysats/blob/main/bip/BIPXXX.MD

1117 sats \ 8 comments \ @Scoresby 4h bitcoin

An alternative to BIP 353

This BIP proposes a standardized way for Bitcoin wallets and related software to retrieve contact and payment information using a simple HTTPS GET request to a .well-known endpoint. Inspired by the Lightning Address specification, this mechanism supports on-chain, off-chain, and identity metadata lookups, enabling richer identity-based interoperability in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

While BIP 353 proposes using DNS, this draft BIP is suggesting using .well-known endpoints. So it sounds like it's more or less creating NIP-05's for Bitcoin wallets. You could self-host it on your own domain, so it wouldn't suffer some of the man-in-the-middle risk of BIP353.

@Murch suggested avoiding the name@domain layout because there are so many ways to interpret email-looking things now.

There's a prototype server you can check out here: https://paysats.online/

view all related items

0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 3h

Note that BIP 353 addresses some reasons why it doesn't use this approach:

There are many existing schemes to resolve human-readable names to cryptocurrency payment instructions. Sadly, these current schemes suffer from a myriad of drawbacks, including (a) lacking succinct proofs of namespace to public key mappings, (b) revealing sender IP addresses to recipients or other intermediaries as a side-effect of payment, (c) relying on the bloated TLS Certificate Authority infrastructure, or (d) lacking open access, not allowing anyone to create a namespace mapping.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @jakoyoh629 4h

People sometimes mention 'Bitcoin ossification,' and I'm not 100% on it, but this article looks like it's saying the opposite. What do you think?

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby OP 3h

BIPs are by definition changes to Bitcoin (BIPS = Bitcoin Improvement Proposals).

102 sats \ 4 replies \ @jakoyoh629 3h

Right, but isn't that bucking up against ossification?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 3h

I suppose I understood your comment to be about BIP 353 somehow specifically "saying the opposite" of ossification. It doesn't buck against ossification any more than any other BIP does.

As far as ossification: that's a much bigger issue. I think you could probably write something interesting about it as a separate post and I"m sure people would be interested to read it.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @jakoyoh629 3h

Ok, I get it, that's not related. Sorry for the off-topic!

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 3h

This is only a proposal and it's also not even a proposal to change the protocol

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jakoyoh629 3h

My bad, sorry!