You are misunderstanding. The requirement for CA-issued certificates and most of the other things you are ranting about will still be only for HTTPS, which will still be optional. HTTP URIs in HTTP/2 will only need self-signed certificates which can be generated automatically by the server. Once servers get good support for it will not be any harder than HTTP/1.1.
> HTTP URIs in HTTP/2 will only need self-signed certificates which can be generated automatically by the server.
Where in the spec is there anything that HTTP URIs in HTTP/2 require any kind of certificate? Anyhow, I think its moot because all of the major browser vendors that have committed to HTTP/2 support have also announced they will support it only for HTTPS URIs, so what HTTP URIs require really only matters for non-browser HTTP-based applications that plan to use HTTP/2.
"There is a separate, more experimental, build available that supports HTTP/2 draft-12 for http:// URIs using Alternate-Services (-01) and the "h2-12" profile. Sometimes this is known as opportunistic encryption. This allows HTTP/2 over TLS for http:// URIs in some cases without verification of the SSL certificate. It also allows spdy/3 and spdy/3.1 for http:// URIs using the same mechanism. "
I wasn't familiar with that, but that approach for HTTP URIs doesn't appear to be a spec requirement. Is there any indication that other browser vendors are going to follow that approach with HTTP URIs?
As for physics, you are mistaken. The only kind of "time travel" that has any basis in physics is the one using Closed Timelike Curves (which is what the article is about) and those are limited to the time the CTC was created in the past.
So, in fact, this is a very good reason to reject the argument of "If it is possible, where are the time travelers?".
