A bit off-topic, I knocked this up this afternoon for a bit of fun.

https://github.com/Bobalot/PaymentServer

It's a flask app which generates a unique bitcoin address from an electrum
mpk for each IP address that makes a request to it and stores the address
for 10 minutes, before issuing a new one.

If you run this on your site with an ssl certificate, people have a valid
way to make anonymous donations to you, without reusing addresses and they
can validate your certificate belongs to you and there is no man in the
middle. Included is a basic page with qrcode and a /getnewaddress route
which returns a plaintext bitcoin address.

Also included is a tool to scan the addresses (using blockchain.info which
isn't very private) to search for unspent outputs.

It left me thinking if we could implement a pay to domain type feature,
which would be able to use ssl to verify the users identity and include in
in the URI scheme.

Eg,

bitcoin:1PRZJ1C13nJ9r6d38Z5foTjqvjdWtvp2z7?fresh_address=
domain.com/getnewaddress

Old clients would just use 1PRZJ1C13nJ9r6d38Z5foTjqvjdWtvp2z7, new clients
could look up https://domain.com/getnewaddress and use the address returned
through there if the ssl connection was trusted. People would then be able
to embed static URIs or qrcodes where they liked and anyone could send them
funds by using their client to get a new address from their domain.

example here.

https://robertwilliamson.net/
https://robertwilliamson.net/getnewaddress

Thanks
Bob




On 16 November 2013 13:41, Mike Gogulski <mike@???> wrote:

>
> On 11/16/2013 01:18 PM, Mark Lamb wrote:
> > I'm Mark :) we could get "John" in the form of Jon Matonis I think.
>
> Good. After that, we can move on the non-canonical gospel authors :)
>
> Jon's opinion on money laundering is out there:
>
> """
> Money laundering has been called the thoughtcrime of finance. Isn't it
> really just banking with someone's possibly nefarious intentions
> attached to the act? It's like buying a drive-thru donut in a stolen
> vehicle. The theft of the vehicle may have been illegal and immoral but
> the act of purchasing a donut is not. Money laundering is not pre-crime
> but post-crime. And, it's difficult to identify the victim, other than
> the bank shareholders that must expend millions of dollars for the
> proactive compliance required as the state's deputized enforcers.
>
> Moreover, money laundering is guilt by association. If the monetary
> flows resulting from associated businesses are deemed illegal, then the
> banking activity is defined as money laundering. But, in the absence of
> victimless crime laws against drugs, gambling, and prostitution, the
> majority of banking labeled as money laundering would simply be banking.
> """
> (
> http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/money-laundering-is-financial-thoughtcrime-1058902-1.html
> )
>
>
> > I'm opposed to Coin Validation - it's worse than what is done in
> > USD/fiat world. It's not "anti-money laundering" for bitcoin, it's
> > just a removal of the the fungibility aspect. In AML, a person is
> > fined/jailed for Money Laundering, but the funds usually are still
> > considered valid. Coin Validation would be far far worse and seems
> > like a scheme to make the miners funds more valuable - although the
> > real result almost inevitably would be that ALL bitcoin are worth
> > less/nothing.
>
> Hm. The "make miners' funds more valuable" is another dark aspect I
> hadn't considered. It's quite encouraging, then, to see Luke publishing
> and implementing code that would actually work against his own financial
> self-interest as a mining pool operator in that respect.
>
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Mike Gogulski <mike@???
> > <mailto:mike@gogulski.com>> wrote:
> >

> >     We've got Matthew's and Luke's opinions on this, but I'd really
> >     like to
> >     hear from Mark and John... ;)

> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>