Address resolution: Sender 'pubkey' OR 'senderHandle'

[wildnothing]

The identity of a sender should be able to be proven via a paymail OR their public key.
Otherwise we are enforcing that a sender MUST have a paymail handle, which may not always be the case.

https://www.moneybutton.com/api/v1/bsvalias/address/blah@moneybutton.com

For example, this returns a successful response:

{
    "senderHandle" : "blah@moneybutton.com",
    "amount" : 1000,
    "dt" : "2021-02-27T17::30+0000",
    "purpose" : "blah",
    "signature" : "HwbaE0o8eYPNsTt3T7LmggruS0UwS/2WYiXHpsu6VmTIOXoohm4MR+YN4Hb/mSKP2hw30DTVMc4tsmK13dy/4/I="
}

However, this does not:

{
    "amount" : 1000,
    "dt" : "2021-02-27T17::30+0000",
    "purpose" : "blah",
    "pubkey" : "02150c35fe106a25311243c0c9c9189de0b21955f69dc14e8bf401f4399a8ae905",
    "signature" : "HwbaE0o8eYPNsTt3T7LmggruS0UwS/2WYiXHpsu6VmTIOXoohm4MR+YN4Hb/mSKP2hw30DTVMc4tsmK13dy/4/I="
}

[calvogenerico]

That would be a change in the bsvalias protocol. That's outside the scope of this library. This library is just an implementation of the protocol in javascript.

Still, I get your point. But I can answer why the standard was done in the way it was done. The idea of paymail is provide identity for users and interoperability for wallets. Doing something like directly use a pubkey to validate identity doesn't allow any of those. A public key is enough information to be identity. Keys might be stolen or lost, so they rotate. Also, with just a public key a wallet cannot perform any kind of operation. That's why inside paymail the way to reffer other people is always via a paymail.