summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorWalter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>2012-11-27 10:16:01 +0800
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2012-11-27 02:16:09 +0000
commitbdbbf66bd8e18ca99679209df384b8c0ab5120ef (patch)
tree80b09079616d32228888766f549f60867137e0f7
parent427a90a64448cbbb76364b495b5dac1bc5f52f69 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-bdbbf66bd8e18ca99679209df384b8c0ab5120ef.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-bdbbf66bd8e18ca99679209df384b8c0ab5120ef.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts
-rw-r--r--5d/fc31fa434249249db7e6ce26174573e5c0e344179
1 files changed, 179 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5d/fc31fa434249249db7e6ce26174573e5c0e344 b/5d/fc31fa434249249db7e6ce26174573e5c0e344
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..91c5844a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/5d/fc31fa434249249db7e6ce26174573e5c0e344
@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <walter.stanish@gmail.com>) id 1TdAiX-0007bO-QG
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:16:09 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=walter.stanish@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com;
+Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47])
+ by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1TdAiW-0006yi-Fa
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:16:09 +0000
+Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j4so3460178bkw.34
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:16:02 -0800 (PST)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Received: by 10.204.145.217 with SMTP id e25mr4155520bkv.123.1353982562011;
+ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:16:02 -0800 (PST)
+Sender: walter.stanish@gmail.com
+Received: by 10.204.49.133 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:16:01 -0800 (PST)
+In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:16:01 +0800
+X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3-nJsW4Wu7BBn65Q1XZJxRo98Zc
+Message-ID: <CACwuEiP7CGeZZGW=mXwrFAAqbbwbrPXTPb8vOEDuO9_96hqBGg@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Walter Stanish <walter@stani.sh>
+To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
+X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
+ sender-domain
+ 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (walter.stanish[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
+ not necessarily valid
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
+X-Headers-End: 1TdAiW-0006yi-Fa
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
+ Invoices/Payments/Receipts
+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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:16:10 -0000
+
+> This is the next big "lets all agree to do things the same way" thing
+> I think we should tackle. I'm particularly looking for feedback from
+> other bitcoin client developers, even if it is just a quick "looks
+> reasonable, if everybody else is going to do it then I will
+> (eventually) too..."
+
+I agree this is a very pertinent subject, and with a bit of looking
+around it is clear that there is a requirement here for emerging
+financial ecosystems of many types, certainly not just for the Bitcoin
+community, which until now seems to have been getting along just about
+OK despite the current levels of complexity.
+
+That said, I have a number of serious concerns with the proposal.
+
+1. Undue Broadening of Scope: From an architectural perspective, if
+one accepts the unix mantra of "do one thing and do it well" as
+reasonable and time-proven doctrine, given that Bitcoin is already
+trying to be both a commodity and a distributed consensus-based
+settlement system, does it really make sense to attempt to tack-on
+business-level functions?
+
+2. X.509: I have read (somewhere or other, recently) that it is
+generally considered bad form to mandate specific cryptographic
+systems in new protocols where open support is possible. Given the
+recent issues with X.509, the security nightmare that already exists
+with the volume of (sometimes cracked, sometimes
+government-compromised?) issuers, and the complexity of the scheme, it
+seems a little strange to singularly mandate X.509, despite its
+widespread use at present. There are also a swathe of potential
+issues around DNS interdependence, information leakage within
+certificates themselves and/or their DNS-interpretation by clients,
+etc. I would consider suggesting open support with initial support for
+GPG, as it is apparently preferred as a simple and further
+decentralized solution by the majority of the open source and
+cryptographic software development community.
+
+3. Failure to Review Existing Work: I would urge anyone to be wary of
+adopting any proposal that does not inform itself through reference to
+existing protocols in the same area. In this area there are a few
+protocols in current use (chiefly in Europe) such as those listed at
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invoice#Electronic_invoices as well as
+various hosted platforms such as http://xero.co.nz/ (chiefly
+Australia/New Zealand). Often, existing work shows its age with
+after-the-fact alterations that sit poorly with initial assumptions:
+exactly the kind of situation one can walk in to developing against a
+proposal before adequately researching the area.
+
+4. Complexity of Metadata: Physical and digital invoicing for
+businesses operating at scale often requires delivery terms, product
+classification codes, locale-specific taxation (often at multiple
+levels), various fees and discounts (sometimes fulfillment-speed
+linked with multiple tiers/thresholds), and other features that I am
+skeptical are ever going to be made fully available within a business
+protocol tacked on to a hybrid digital currency/settlement system
+(like Bitcoin) as a secondary concern.
+
+5. Non-BTC Currencies/Currency-like Commodities: No approach to
+non-BTC currencies appears to have been made, which makes the
+"invoice" of limited utility for almost all businesses, save those
+willing to accept all of the 'capital risk' (exchange rate fluctuation
+risk) inherent in a BTC-based fulfilment process with a potential term
+long enough to justify an invoicing process. (Does this narrow scope
+actually cover any existing business?)
+
+6. DNS: As already mentioned with regards to X.509: a huge red flag as
+an area of potential vulnerability, or at least information leakage.
+
+I must now admit that in raising the above I am definitely biased. My
+employer (Payward, Inc.) and other organizations (OpenCoin, Inc.,
+etc.) have been working with the Internet Engineering Task Force
+(IETF) on tabling some open proposals within this area under the
+auspices of the Internet Financial Exchange Project
+(http://ifex-project.org/). Our hope is to facilitate the requisite
+standardisation within internet-connected systems to deal with what is
+perhaps fairly characterised as a relatively heterogeneous outlook on
+the rise of cryptographic (and other alternate) currencies and
+commodities, and emerging settlement infrastructures.
+
+Whilst the current Bitcoin proposal is admirable for correctly raising
+the area as one of immediate concern, I hope that the above points out
+some of the perhaps as-yet unconsidered complexities and draws in to
+question whether Bitcoin is in fact the appropriate place to implement
+a solution, given the hassles that will entail. After all, wouldn't
+Bitcoin developer time would be better spent improving the core of
+bitcoin (ie. distributed settlement system and commodity) rather than
+adding new features?
+
+I would invite parties within the Bitcoin community with an interest
+in non directly settlement-linked financial transaction negotiation
+and reporting features to consider contributing to the existing,
+re-usable efforts at the IFEX Project, rather than supporting the
+extension of one currency/commodity and settlement infrastructure (ie.
+Bitcoin) which IMHO is likely to detract from developer time, increase
+complexity, and perhaps result in a less polished and re-applicable
+solution overall.
+
+Our proposals:
+ - X-ISO4217-A3 (X-ISO4217-A3). A published proposal that provides a
+mechanism for the open identification of currencies or currency-like
+commodities on the internet. (Bitcoin is registered as XBTC).
+http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/x-iso4217-a3
+ - Internet IBAN (IIBAN). A published proposal that provides a
+mechanism for the open identification of financial endpoints on the
+internet. (IBAN compatible, checksum-included, name-squatting problem
+avoiding. The registry of entities is IANA-managed, encourages GPG
+use, and avoids the X.509 requirement.)
+http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/iiban
+ - Internet MIC (IMIC). A published proposal that provides a mechanism
+for the open identification of financial markets on the internet.
+(Such as most Bitcoin exchanges)
+http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/imic
+ - Internet Financial EXchange (IFEX). A proposal under development
+that facilitates the negotiation of financial transactions between
+internet-based financial endpoints. (The area we would love your
+input) http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/ifex
+
+Sincerely and with the utmost respect for the Bitcoin project's excellent work,
+Walter Stanish
+
+