4 ms·
> Because a public key on its own isn't that useful as the address of a resource? Why not? If I can send a message to someone with their public key, it is a re
by stormbrew 14y ago
> Because a public key on its own isn't that useful as the address of a resource?
Why not? If I can send a message to someone with their public key, it is a resource address. At least, I assume he's talking about these "BM-BcJFNZDyzQKXCVJZtBJGqoon2f7GKo6s" (that's the author's) strings people are sharing. It could easily be bm:BcJFNZDyzQKXCVJZtBJGqoon2f7GKo6s and that would be a valid URI if the scheme were registered.
- zanny 14y agoI'm always mad at URI's because file: required redundant slashes (ex: file:///bin) until RFC3986 (which allowed file:/bin) but most apps that use URIs (such as browsers, or Dolphin) still throw in the redundant host slashes.
- gesman 14y agoLet redundant slashes be our last problem on the internet. Amen!
- xyzzy123 14y agoI suppose that's a valid point. However, you can always treat address encoding and URI schemes separately. Email addresses aren't URIs, but mailto: links are.