diff options
author | Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> | 2014-01-27 19:18:11 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-01-27 18:18:31 +0000 |
commit | 33fa783e7174257a4bfabab10615a3213cfb729c (patch) | |
tree | 2303c985562aa108bd3d60e38452f8a217603dd8 | |
parent | a076e4e33c6a2c5f261db224def7d1d8fa75708e (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-33fa783e7174257a4bfabab10615a3213cfb729c.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-33fa783e7174257a4bfabab10615a3213cfb729c.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments
-rw-r--r-- | 56/d3200187be8f6a1d635ce4e118159111746627 | 172 |
1 files changed, 172 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/56/d3200187be8f6a1d635ce4e118159111746627 b/56/d3200187be8f6a1d635ce4e118159111746627 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f08015f41 --- /dev/null +++ b/56/d3200187be8f6a1d635ce4e118159111746627 @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>) + id 1W7qlT-0003yu-Ub for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:31 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org + designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) + client-ip=80.91.229.3; + envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; + helo=plane.gmane.org; +Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) + (Exim 4.76) id 1W7qlS-0007FT-NE + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:31 +0000 +Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) + (envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>) + id 1W7qlL-0001fz-TQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:18:23 +0100 +Received: from f053014231.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.14.231]) + by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) + id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:18:23 +0100 +Received: from andreas by f053014231.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 + (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:18:23 +0100 +X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> +Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:18:11 +0100 +Message-ID: <lc67sl$h3$1@ger.gmane.org> +References: <lc5hmg$1jh$1@ger.gmane.org> + <CANEZrP3POX5SACS18_rrQxx=mzmthrM418zmd8Z7-5CBNFSW4Q@mail.gmail.com> +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org +X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f053014231.adsl.alicedsl.de +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; + rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 +In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3POX5SACS18_rrQxx=mzmthrM418zmd8Z7-5CBNFSW4Q@mail.gmail.com> +X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record + 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, + domain signs all mail + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1W7qlS-0007FT-NE +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:18:32 -0000 + +On 01/27/2014 02:11 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: + +> I would like to see Bluetooth continue to work for scan-to-pay even in +> the signed case. So for this reason the current approach with a BTMAC +> parameter in the Bitcoin URI seems to work universally across NFC tags +> and QR codes, and would allow download of a signed PaymentRequest even +> in the case where a QR code is used. + +I'm not saying I'm against signed payment requests, but unfortunately +they are just too big for QR-codes. Then again, QR-codes *can* take up +to 2 KB. How big would a very basic trust chain plus signature be? + +> Because a Bitcoin URI already contains a public key (hash), re-using +> that to establish an encrypted/authd connection on top of an insecure +> RFCOMM socket would seem to be relatively straightforward. + +I was under the impression that addresses will go away. Can you +elaborate on the mechanism? + +> Obviously such QR-encoded payment requests cannot grow in size as much +> as using other media. In particular, I expect PKI signed requests are +> out of question. However, in face to face payments the value of a sig +> based on PKI is highly questionable, and the fact the sig cannot be +> verified without TCP connectivity doesn't help. +> +> Just a correction here - the reason signed payment requests are "large" +> (about 4000 bytes) is exactly because they *can* be verified offline, +> i.e. by a Trezor. The signed payment request contains all the data +> needed to establish its authenticity, including certificates and the +> signature itself. No TCP connection is needed. + +Ok, that's good news (to me). However, you are going to manage trust +stores (adding and revoking) without TCP? + +> For face to face payments, I think signing is still useful. For one, we +> want to keep the distinction between "merchant" and "user" as blurry and +> indistinct as possible. A strong separation between merchants and +> consumers is one of the many bad things about the credit card system. + +Ack. + +> Whilst initially we'd expect the payment protocol to be used by online +> webshops, in future it could be used by little corner shops, children's +> lemonade stands and so on. + +Well I'm thinking the other way round. Use Bitcoin where its already +used today -- face to face. + +> you probably still would like a receipt if you buy +> something from a local market trader. + +Yes, but where is the problem? + +> Another use case - we heard a story about a restaurant owner who +> accepted Bitcoin. He printed a static bitcoin URI onto a QR code on the +> menu. A month or two later he discovered one of his waiters had +> re-printed the menus with his own QR code! The people thought they had +> been paying for the meal, and in fact it went right into the pocket of +> the waiter. + +Sad story, but it's really a special case. Using a printed QR-code is +clearly the wrong tool for his task, for several reasons. + +And again, how is he going to provide the payment request to the payer +without TCP? + +> As to how it works, well, that's not hard. Comodo give away free email +> address certs with a few mouse clicks, it's no harder than signing up +> for a website. + +We don't want to force people to sign up anywhere. Bitcoin is instant-on. + +> - I chose to re-use the "bitcoin:" URL scheme +> +> Other wallets won't know what to do with it and would yield a strange +> error message. + +Which is why I said we need some transition time. + +> Rather than pack a file into a URL, if you don't want to +> use the current r= extension it's better for apps to just register to +> handle .bitcoinpaymentrequest files / the right MIME type. Downloading +> it and opening it would do the right thing automatically. + +That's a good point. I'll implement this asap. + +> Remember BIP 73 also! It says that with the apps built-in QR scanner, if +> you scan an HTTP[S] URI, you should try downloading it with a magic +> header. That way you can get a payment request file out of the server. +> Without the magic header (i.e. a normal generic barcode scanner app) it +> would open a web page containing a bitcoin URI clickable link. + +Interesting, did not know about this BIP. However I don't understand the +usecase. Its not like my browsers always display QR-codes with URL of +the page being shown. And if the page in question bothers to show a QR +code, it could just as well also link to a payment request resource (as +suggested above). + + + + |