On 27 December 2014 at 13:07, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com > wrote: > On 2014-12-27 10:59, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > <snip> > >> >> I think we are either agreeing or going round in circles. >> > > I think you owe us a flowchart and UI description otherwise we won't get > forward. > > > I like the chrome extension and it could save a server URL. >> > > OK, I'm less enthusiastic since it is undocumented and chrome-specific. > > > This is not the only way to implement it, I'm personally using X.509. >> > > Which is something entirely different which I have absolutely no clue about > (in this context) unless you are talking about WebID-TLS where the URL is > a part of certificate. > Yes it is different. As I keep saying there's many ways to implement the 402 pattern. I'm not currently using webid+TLS but I will implement that soon. Right now, I simply use the fingerprint of the certificate as the wallet URL. So every certificate can have a balance and make authenticated secure transfers. This works fantastically well for me, but please note my stress that it's only one way to implement 402's. I'm sure you'll want to shoot his down, but if such a system doesnt suit your needs implement it another way or implement something else. This is just a way of doing payments on the client and server that some people like. > > Anders > >
Received on Saturday, 27 December 2014 13:44:24 UTC