Quote from: Cryddit on October 23, 2013, 01:04:45 AM

I'm the "proposer" and I know exactly what the interlock protocol does. It flatly prevents a MITM from altering your communications with someone else while allowing you to communicate at all. That is what I said, and that is what it does.

There is no need to use the interlock protocol when you have an authentication method. You can just use your authentication method to authenticate the DH ephemeral exchange (or some resulting derived session ID) and then you know there is no MITM. If you do not have an authentication method the interlock protocol generally does you no good.

Do you have any idea what the payment protocol is or has the name confused you? It's format for (optionally cryptographically signed) invoices and receipts. It's not necessarily used interactively, e.g. you can send payment requests as email attachments.

Quote from: Cryddit on October 23, 2013, 01:04:45 AM

I *will* be upset if using SSL authentication reduces us to using SSL to secure the channel.

The discussion in this thread is about the fact that the payment requests can x.509 certificates to cryptographically sign their content. "SSL authentication" is completely out of left field here.

I *will* be upset if you continue to use that tone in this discussion.

Quote from: johnyj on October 23, 2013, 06:37:10 AM

I just heard that someone lost 150 coins in an offline wallet with a 20 character strong password and he doesn't understand at all what went wrong

It so obvious to you when you get to gloat over other people's losses, but I've yet to see you speak up in a thread where people are advancing "brainwallets" and say "no! don't do it!".