Mike Hearn



Offline



Activity: 1526

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1526Merit: 1008 FAQ on the payment protocol September 24, 2013, 02:56:40 PM

Last edit: September 25, 2013, 08:08:21 AM by Mike Hearn #1



What is the payment protocol?



Old timers will remember that Bitcoin v0.1, the first version ever released, allowed you to pay people in two ways. One was by entering a Bitcoin address. The other was to enter an IP address. If you entered an IP address, your computer would connect to the node on that IP and run a rudimentary payment protocol that involved asking the node for a fresh public key, then uploading the payment transaction directly.



Satoshi thought this payment protocol would be how people mostly used Bitcoin. It had some advantages, like guaranteeing a fresh address. He originally intended addresses to be used only for when the recipient was offline. But he was wrong - addresses quickly came to dominate and hardly anyone used the pay-to-IP feature. Eventually it was removed.



Why did it fail?



One reason is that it wasn't very secure, anyone who could MITM your internet connection (like someone sharing your wifi) could steal money sent this way. Another more practical reason is that back then there were no online shops that accepted Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin was a Windows-only pure GUI app with no JSON-RPC API so nobody could even build online shops. So you never knew if the person you were trying to pay would be online or not at the time, meaning giving an address was more reliable. Also: NAT, firewalls, etc.



But it wasn't a bad idea and so now we're bringing it back, but with a better design. The hope is that over time this will come to replace Bitcoin addresses for most usages. But don't worry. Addresses aren't going to disappear. They'll still be around if you want them.



How does it work?



It's a way to format a small piece of data (think file) that contains instructions on how to pay someone (a PaymentRequest message), and then a formal specification of how to satisfy those instructions by submitting a Payment message. The data is designed to be extensible in future so we can add lots of useful features.



In future, clickable bitcoin links will look like this:



bitcoin:1EZEqFBd8yuc9ir2761987q7k3VcALC8YQ?request=https://bitcoinstore.com/r/aBcdE



When clicked, your wallet app will download the request URL and read the PaymentRequest it gets. The request message contains another URL, which is where to submit the finished transaction to (instead of/as well as broadcasting it to the P2P network).



Who is implementing the new protocol?



Support will be in the next Bitcoin-Qt release, and is being worked on for MultiBit/Android Bitcoin Wallet, CoinBase and CoinPunk. BitPay also committed to implementing it, so all merchants who use their services will get support automatically. If you're planning to support it, let me know and I'll add you here!



What's wrong with Bitcoin addresses?



Lots. They lead to privacy leaks, they are inflexible and tough to extend with new features, they aren't authenticated and they're one way only.



Why do they lead to privacy leaks?



The standard way to use an address is one address per payment received (if your wallet makes that easy to do). This can lead to privacy leaks in the following scenario.



Say you work for a small coffee shop which accepts Bitcoin payments of say 0.01 coins for a coffee. Over the month lots of these small payments get accepted. At the end of the month you get your salary, so you give your employer a fresh address. They make a payment to that address by collecting together lots of the coffee payments and generating one giant salary-sized output.



You then go to the pub and your friend says, hey mate, you owe me $10 for losing that bet we made last week (or whatever). So you send him $10 worth of Bitcoins, of course your wallet goes and selects your salary output to do that. Your friend can now look at the transaction he received and see that it came from a single large, salary-sized looking output. Now they know how much you earn.



A better way would be if you gave your employer 100 addresses, and they could then pay you with 100 transactions that re-allocate small numbers of coffee payments to your keys. Then the linkage would be much smaller. But in practice nobody does this.



How does the payment protocol solve that?



The request message allows you to request the payment be spread over multiple outputs (which don't have to be pay-to-address type outputs at that point, they could contain any script, like multi-signature scripts). It also lets the payer submit multiple transactions as part of satisfying the same payment. When an app generates a payment request (e.g. to get your salary), it knows how much money it's requesting and it can spread the money over many outputs. They payer might still generate one mega-transaction, but it's smarter for the payer to try and match up what it's got most closely with what's requested, to maximize privacy and minimise leakage.



Why does the sender submit transactions directly to the recipient?



Currently to pay someone you broadcast transactions to the P2P network and the recipient waits for them to arrive. This works OK, but can be inflexible. For instance, what if the sender doesn't have an internet connection? What if they're behind an evil firewall that only allows web traffic? What if the recipient has a deal with a specific miner and doesn't want to broadcast the transactions at all?



In the new payment protocol, the request contains instructions on how to submit the payment. Typically, the wallet will be given an HTTPS URL to submit the data too, but alternatives are easily possible. For instance, the Android wallet app already supports using Bluetooth to send transactions directly to the recipient (when both sides use Android). That's great when you're travelling/roaming and might not have an internet connection. The payment protocol will let us standardise that behaviour instead of it being specific to that one app.



What other features does it add?



In v1 of the protocol:



Refunds . The sender can submit some refund addresses to the recipient at the same time as submitting the transactions. Now if the seller wants to give the buyer a quick refund, they can do so. No more problems with trying to "guess" the users address and sometimes getting it wrong due to shared wallets. Bitcoin-Qt generates a refund address for every payment done this way, but you'll only see them if you do actually get a refund.



Memos . Clickable links can already contain short strings or labels, but their length is tightly limited by what browsers will accept and what fits in a QRcode. BIP 70 allows payment requests to contain arbitrarily long memos, which can be used to describe what you are buying. This is super useful when the payment request is authenticated ....



What is authentication about?



Bitcoin is a difficult project partly because we're moving money around with general purpose computers that can be hacked or get viruses. VISA and MasterCard have moved everyone (outside the USA) to special-purpose hardware like chip cards and dedicated readers which can't have random apps installed on them. Our approach has to be a bit different, but dedicated hardware is still coming. The



There's an obvious flaw with that design when combined with Bitcoin as it is today. The "details of the payment" you'll see on screen will look like this:



Pay 0.5 BTC to 1EZEqFBd8yuc9ir2761987q7k3VcALC8YQ?



Where did that address come from? Well, it came from your computer. The thing that probably has a virus on it. That virus could have swapped out the address sent by the online shop you're using for one owned by the virus author, and because they're just random numbers you'd never know. Although the virus can't empty your wallet immediately, it can still steal payments when you make one, and avoiding that is the whole point of using special hardware!



The payment protocol allows recipients to sign their requests under an "identity". An "identity" is just some arbitrary string, that was itself signed by some "certificate authority". The authority vends signed statements that say (simplifying a bit) "I, Bob Smith, believe address 1EZEqFBd8yuc9ir2761987q7k3VcALC8YQ is owned by Mike Hearn". Now if your Trezor happens to trust that Bob Smith validates identities reliably, it can display:



Pay 0.5 BTC to Mike Hearn?



and that message can't be tampered with by any virus. As you can see this is much safer.



How do receipts work?



When a payment request is signed it's not just the addresses. The memo is also signed. By keeping around the signed payment request, and the transactions you created to satisfy it, you obtain a mathematical proof of payment. The merchant cannot dispute what was paid for because the memo field contains a description, nor can they dispute that payment was delivered (unless they claim they lost control of their private keys, of course).



This is great because it fills in a missing piece for low-trust



With receipts, it suddenly becomes much easier to figure out what happened in a transaction and recompense the right party.



Do payment requests have to be signed?



No. Without a signature they are basically just a container for addresses and memos.



Do payment requests get stored in the block chain?



No. Payment requests and responses are transmitted directly between buyer and seller. They are not recorded publicly.



What about other features, like tips?



The payment request and response messages use a format called protocol buffers, which is easy to extend. I compiled a list of future feature ideas here:



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270055.msg2890147#msg2890147



None of those exist today, but before they can be created we need somewhere to stash the data they require. The payment protocol is the perfect place.



How do identities work?



The protocol can be extended with multiple methods, but for v1 the only one that works is X.509 certificates. This is the same scheme used for SSL.



Essentially, anyone can get a certificate attesting to some kind of identity. Often it's just an email address or website domain name (e.g. bitcointalk.org has a certificate containing its domain name). It can also be a legal name like "Michael C Hearn" or "Mt Gox Ltd". In fact, if you have a passport with a chip in it then you already have a certificate containing your passport data, but it's not very useful because there's no private key associated with it.



Sometimes certificates are paid for and other times they are free. The certificate authorities never get your private key. Instead you generate a private key locally, then ask the CA to sign your public key. At the same time you prove your identity, if your identity is an email address then you typically receive a clickable link there for instance. If it's your name you might have to submit some paperwork.



Does this make Bitcoin less anonymous or private?



No. People always know an identity of who they're paying already. That doesn't have to be a legal identity. It can be a forum handle or pseudonym too, so even on the Silk Road this holds true - you know you're paying "Drug Dealer Dan" or whoever. But you basically never send money into the void with absolutely no idea of who it's meant to go to (outside of special protocols we're not going to address here).



Knowing the identity of who is paying you is less common, but the payment protocol doesn't establish two-way identity. Only the entity requesting payment has the option to sign (and of course they don't have to).



Can I use the PGP web of trust?



No, that's not supported in v1. However anyone can become a certificate authority, in fact Apple ships a GUI for creating and running one with every copy of MacOS. But you would have to convince people to trust you, which is the hard part. The "web of trust" doesn't solve that problem - you would still have to convince people to trust you for the purpose of signing keys.



That said, it's imaginable that trusted community members might create their own CA's and start issuing identities. For example, BitcoinTalk could issue certificates where the identity is your forum username. If wallet authors/hardware wallet designers decided to trust theymos for that purpose, you could see forum handles appear on your Trezor.



Isn't SSL horribly broken?



No, not really. Some people say it is, but there are no better systems - the X.509 PKI (public key infrastructure) reflects the result of many years of evolution and improvement. What's more, it's still being improved. Because it underpins SSL there's a lot of rich and powerful entities who want to see it get better, like Google, which pays people to work on it.



Let's make that concrete. One of the most common concerns with the X.509 PKI is that there are too many certificate authorities. This is still an improvement on the old days (early 90's) when there was only one CA, but having hundreds means that any CA can issue a cert that every user will accept. What stops a CA issuing a bogus cert to an imposter, like a hacker or a government .... or just another customer?



Currently the act of issuing a cert leaves no traces so this is a real concern, although there are remarkably few known cases of it happening given the enormous size and scale of the PKI. Google is developing a solution called "certificate transparency":



http://www.certificate-transparency.org/



It's a public post-unforgeable audit log of all certificates issued. It works a little bit like the Bitcoin block chain, in fact. Each certificate can contain a proof (some Merkle branches) linking it to an entry in the public log. Once a CA has started using the system, if a certificate is found signed by that CA which does not contain such a proof it can be rejected as invalid. This means the CA can no longer issue certificates in secret. By watching the public audit logs, you can spot if a CA issues a certificate in your name .... or even in a name that's just confusingly similar to yours (so it is a way to fight against phishing as well).



I still prefer the web of trust



You shouldn't. The PKI is the result of evolving a web of trust style system over many years, as it got real usage. It looks the way it does because of its solutions to the problems the raw web of trust model has.



For instance, let's say Bob starts signing keys using GPG. His signature is worth very little unless I happen to know and trust him. In practice as a new Bitcoin user who just saw it on CNN, I don't know Bob. However, maybe I do trust the guys making the Trezor because they are a real company and they live in a country with sane laws, etc, they have lots of happy customers, so that gives me a starting point. Then if stick and slush trust Bob, and Bob has signed the key of bitcoinstore.com then I have a chain of trust to the store.



Bob has become a certificate authority!



How trustworthy is Bob, really? Does he keep his private key on a computer running a warez copy of Windows XP that is full of malware? It would be nice if we could formalise the "stick and slush trust Bob" part of the above description. Otherwise what stops Mallory turning up and demanding that Trezor trusts him too?



A good way to resolve this conundrum is to come up with a set of best practices, like keeping your private key inside a hardware security module, and setting some rules around when Bob/Mallory should sign a public key. To increase trust in the system and stop Mallory just claiming he follows the rules when really he doesn't, we might want to create a formal audit system and an auditor organisation that verifies these guys are following the rules.



We just re-invented the WebTrust Audit:



http://www.sslshopper.com/article-what-is-webtrust-for-cas-certification-authorities.html



Eventually as Bob and Mallory get more professional and trusted, they'll discover it's sort of hard to do it in their spare time so they'll create companies and start charging fees. They'll compete in the open market. After a long time, some of them will discover that for the most basic kind of key signing (emails and domain names) it can be entirely automated and done for free.



That's StartSSL.



As the number of trusted parties goes up and they handle more and more key signings, eventually Bob or Mallory might get hacked or pressured by the government. It'd be nice if everyone knew what keys Bob and Mallory had signed, in a more scalable way than just relying on everyone to upload all their keys to the MIT key server.



That's certificate transparency.



I hope you can see now why the PGP web of trust would eventually end up being pretty similar to the regular PKI, if it got big enough.

Recently Gavin merged support for BIP 70 , 71 and 72 into Bitcoin-Qt. BIP 70, aka the payment protocol, is intended to be a big change to how people use Bitcoin. A lot of questions about it come up repeatedly, so here's an attempt to answer the most common ones.Old timers will remember that Bitcoin v0.1, the first version ever released, allowed you to pay people in two ways. One was by entering a Bitcoin address. The other was to enter an IP address. If you entered an IP address, your computer would connect to the node on that IP and run a rudimentary payment protocol that involved asking the node for a fresh public key, then uploading the payment transaction directly.Satoshi thought this payment protocol would be how people mostly used Bitcoin. It had some advantages, like guaranteeing a fresh address. He originally intended addresses to be used only for when the recipient was offline. But he was wrong - addresses quickly came to dominate and hardly anyone used the pay-to-IP feature. Eventually it was removed.Why did it fail?One reason is that it wasn't very secure, anyone who could MITM your internet connection (like someone sharing your wifi) could steal money sent this way. Another more practical reason is that back then there were no online shops that accepted Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin was a Windows-only pure GUI app with no JSON-RPC API so nobody could even build online shops. So you never knew if the person you were trying to pay would be online or not at the time, meaning giving an address was more reliable. Also: NAT, firewalls, etc.But it wasn't a bad idea and so now we're bringing it back, but with a better design. The hope is that over time this will come to replace Bitcoin addresses for most usages. But don't worry. Addresses aren't going to disappear. They'll still be around if you want them.It's a way to format a small piece of data (think file) that contains instructions on how to pay someone (amessage), and then a formal specification of how to satisfy those instructions by submitting amessage. The data is designed to be extensible in future so we can add lots of useful features.In future, clickable bitcoin links will look like this:When clicked, your wallet app will download the request URL and read the PaymentRequest it gets. The request message contains another URL, which is where to submit the finished transaction to (instead of/as well as broadcasting it to the P2P network).Support will be in the next Bitcoin-Qt release, and is being worked on for MultiBit/Android Bitcoin Wallet, CoinBase and CoinPunk. BitPay also committed to implementing it, so all merchants who use their services will get support automatically. If you're planning to support it, let me know and I'll add you here!Lots. They lead to privacy leaks, they are inflexible and tough to extend with new features, they aren't authenticated and they're one way only.The standard way to use an address is one address per payment received (if your wallet makes that easy to do). This can lead to privacy leaks in the following scenario.Say you work for a small coffee shop which accepts Bitcoin payments of say 0.01 coins for a coffee. Over the month lots of these small payments get accepted. At the end of the month you get your salary, so you give your employer a fresh address. They make a payment to that address by collecting together lots of the coffee payments and generating one giant salary-sized output.You then go to the pub and your friend says, hey mate, you owe me $10 for losing that bet we made last week (or whatever). So you send him $10 worth of Bitcoins, of course your wallet goes and selects your salary output to do that. Your friend can now look at the transaction he received and see that it came from a single large, salary-sized looking output. Now they know how much you earn.A better way would be if you gave your employer 100 addresses, and they could then pay you with 100 transactions that re-allocate small numbers of coffee payments to your keys. Then the linkage would be much smaller. But in practice nobody does this.The request message allows you to request the payment be spread over multiple outputs (which don't have to be pay-to-address type outputs at that point, they could contain any script, like multi-signature scripts). It also lets the payer submit multiple transactions as part of satisfying the same payment. When an app generates a payment request (e.g. to get your salary), it knows how much money it's requesting and it can spread the money over many outputs. They payer might still generate one mega-transaction, but it's smarter for the payer to try and match up what it's got most closely with what's requested, to maximize privacy and minimise leakage.Currently to pay someone you broadcast transactions to the P2P network and the recipient waits for them to arrive. This works OK, but can be inflexible. For instance, what if the sender doesn't have an internet connection? What if they're behind an evil firewall that only allows web traffic? What if the recipient has a deal with a specific miner and doesn't want to broadcast the transactions at all?In the new payment protocol, the request contains instructions on how to submit the payment. Typically, the wallet will be given an HTTPS URL to submit the data too, but alternatives are easily possible. For instance, the Android wallet app already supports using Bluetooth to send transactions directly to the recipient (when both sides use Android). That's great when you're travelling/roaming and might not have an internet connection. The payment protocol will let us standardise that behaviour instead of it being specific to that one app.In v1 of the protocol:. The sender can submit some refund addresses to the recipient at the same time as submitting the transactions. Now if the seller wants to give the buyer a quick refund, they can do so. No more problems with trying to "guess" the users address and sometimes getting it wrong due to shared wallets. Bitcoin-Qt generates a refund address for every payment done this way, but you'll only see them if you do actually get a refund.. Clickable links can already contain short strings or labels, but their length is tightly limited by what browsers will accept and what fits in a QRcode. BIP 70 allows payment requests to contain arbitrarily long memos, which can be used to describe what you are buying. This is super useful when the payment request is authenticated ....Bitcoin is a difficult project partly because we're moving money around with general purpose computers that can be hacked or get viruses. VISA and MasterCard have moved everyone (outside the USA) to special-purpose hardware like chip cards and dedicated readers which can't have random apps installed on them. Our approach has to be a bit different, but dedicated hardware is still coming. The Trezor device is a mini computer just for Bitcoin that plugs into a "real" computer via USB. It has a display and a couple of buttons. It holds your private keys. When you want to make a payment, the details of the payment are shown on the screen and if they're what you want, you press OK and things get signed.There's an obvious flaw with that design when combined with Bitcoin as it is today. The "details of the payment" you'll see on screen will look like this:Pay 0.5 BTC to 1EZEqFBd8yuc9ir2761987q7k3VcALC8YQ?Where did that address come from? Well, it came from your computer. The thing that probably has a virus on it. That virus could have swapped out the address sent by the online shop you're using for one owned by the virus author, and because they're just random numbers you'd never know. Although the virus can't empty your wallet immediately, it can still steal payments when you make one, and avoiding that is the whole point of using special hardware!The payment protocol allows recipients to sign their requests under an "identity". An "identity" is just some arbitrary string, that was itself signed by some "certificate authority". The authority vends signed statements that say (simplifying a bit) "I, Bob Smith, believe address 1EZEqFBd8yuc9ir2761987q7k3VcALC8YQ is owned by Mike Hearn". Now if your Trezor happens to trust that Bob Smith validates identities reliably, it can display:Pay 0.5 BTC to Mike Hearn?and that message can't be tampered with by any virus. As you can see this is much safer.When a payment request is signed it's not just the addresses. The memo is also signed. By keeping around the signed payment request, and the transactions you created to satisfy it, you obtain a mathematical proof of payment. The merchant cannot dispute what was paid for because the memo field contains a description, nor can they dispute that payment was delivered (unless they claim they lost control of their private keys, of course).This is great because it fills in a missing piece for low-trust third party dispute mediation using multi-sig transactions. Currently if you tried to implement that, you'd run into the problem of a buyer saying "seller did not deliver!!" and the seller saying "the buyer never paid me!" or more problematically, buyer saying "seller gave me something different to what I asked for" and the seller saying "I gave him exactly what we agreed on".With receipts, it suddenly becomes much easier to figure out what happened in a transaction and recompense the right party.No. Without a signature they are basically just a container for addresses and memos.No. Payment requests and responses are transmitted directly between buyer and seller. They are not recorded publicly.The payment request and response messages use a format called protocol buffers, which is easy to extend. I compiled a list of future feature ideas here:None of those exist today, but before they can be created we need somewhere to stash the data they require. The payment protocol is the perfect place.The protocol can be extended with multiple methods, but for v1 the only one that works is X.509 certificates. This is the same scheme used for SSL.Essentially, anyone can get a certificate attesting to some kind of identity. Often it's just an email address or website domain name (e.g. bitcointalk.org has a certificate containing its domain name). It can also be a legal name like "Michael C Hearn" or "Mt Gox Ltd". In fact, if you have a passport with a chip in it then you already have a certificate containing your passport data, but it's not very useful because there's no private key associated with it.Sometimes certificates are paid for and other times they are free. The certificate authorities never get your private key. Instead you generate a private key locally, then ask the CA to sign your public key. At the same time you prove your identity, if your identity is an email address then you typically receive a clickable link there for instance. If it's your name you might have to submit some paperwork.No. People always know an identity of who they're paying already. That doesn't have to be a legal identity. It can be a forum handle or pseudonym too, so even on the Silk Road this holds true - you know you're paying "Drug Dealer Dan" or whoever. But you basically never send money into the void with absolutely no idea of who it's meant to go to (outside of special protocols we're not going to address here).Knowing the identity of who is paying you is less common, but the payment protocol doesn't establish two-way identity. Only the entity requesting payment has the option to sign (and of course they don't have to).No, that's not supported in v1. However anyone can become a certificate authority, in fact Apple ships a GUI for creating and running one with every copy of MacOS. But you would have to convince people to trust you, which is the hard part. The "web of trust" doesn't solve that problem - you would still have to convince people to trust you for the purpose of signing keys.That said, it's imaginable that trusted community members might create their own CA's and start issuing identities. For example, BitcoinTalk could issue certificates where the identity is your forum username. If wallet authors/hardware wallet designers decided to trust theymos for that purpose, you could see forum handles appear on your Trezor.No, not really. Some people say it is, but there are no better systems - the X.509 PKI (public key infrastructure) reflects the result of many years of evolution and improvement. What's more, it's. Because it underpins SSL there's a lot of rich and powerful entities who want to see it get better, like Google, which pays people to work on it.Let's make that concrete. One of the most common concerns with the X.509 PKI is that there are too many certificate authorities. This is still an improvement on the old days (early 90's) when there was only one CA, but having hundreds means that any CA can issue a cert that every user will accept. What stops a CA issuing a bogus cert to an imposter, like a hacker or a government .... or just another customer?Currently the act of issuing a cert leaves no traces so this is a real concern, although there are remarkably few known cases of it happening given the enormous size and scale of the PKI. Google is developing a solution called "certificate transparency":It's a public post-unforgeable audit log of all certificates issued. It works a little bit like the Bitcoin block chain, in fact. Each certificate can contain a proof (some Merkle branches) linking it to an entry in the public log. Once a CA has started using the system, if a certificate is found signed by that CA which does not contain such a proof it can be rejected as invalid. This means the CA can no longer issue certificates in secret. By watching the public audit logs, you can spot if a CA issues a certificate in your name .... or even in a name that's just confusingly similar to yours (so it is a way to fight against phishing as well).You shouldn't. The PKI is the result of evolving a web of trust style system over many years, as it got real usage. It looks the way it does because of its solutions to the problems the raw web of trust model has.For instance, let's say Bob starts signing keys using GPG. His signature is worth very little unless I happen to know and trust him. In practice as a new Bitcoin user who just saw it on CNN, I don't know Bob. However, maybe I do trust the guys making the Trezor because they are a real company and they live in a country with sane laws, etc, they have lots of happy customers, so that gives me a starting point. Then if stick and slush trust Bob, and Bob has signed the key of bitcoinstore.com then I have a chain of trust to the store.Bob has become a certificate authority!How trustworthy is Bob, really? Does he keep his private key on a computer running a warez copy of Windows XP that is full of malware? It would be nice if we could formalise the "stick and slush trust Bob" part of the above description. Otherwise what stops Mallory turning up and demanding that Trezor trusts him too?A good way to resolve this conundrum is to come up with a set of best practices, like keeping your private key inside a hardware security module, and setting some rules around when Bob/Mallory should sign a public key. To increase trust in the system and stop Mallory just claiming he follows the rules when really he doesn't, we might want to create a formal audit system and an auditor organisation that verifies these guys are following the rules.We just re-invented the WebTrust Audit:Eventually as Bob and Mallory get more professional and trusted, they'll discover it's sort of hard to do it in their spare time so they'll create companies and start charging fees. They'll compete in the open market. After a long time, some of them will discover that for the most basic kind of key signing (emails and domain names) it can be entirely automated and done for free.That's StartSSL.As the number of trusted parties goes up and they handle more and more key signings, eventually Bob or Mallory might get hacked or pressured by the government. It'd be nice if everyone knew what keys Bob and Mallory had signed, in a more scalable way than just relying on everyone to upload all their keys to the MIT key server.That's certificate transparency.I hope you can see now why the PGP web of trust would eventually end up being pretty similar to the regular PKI, if it got big enough.