Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <521298F0.20108@petersson.at>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<521298F0.20108@petersson.at>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:19:38 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3b--tfUmaxJxsXyM2f3Cw4M1oX1nX8o9WkW_haBmLctA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
Precedence: list

--e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>wrote:

> I was just reviewing the integration work to integrate the Payment
> Protocol into our products. Is there any notion of a standardized
> invoice serialisation? If i pay for two Burgers and one Club Mate, how
> would my Bitcoin Wallet be able to know that?


No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoicing that
include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message could
easily encapsulate one of them in an 'invoice' field extension. Or we could
reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I'd rather use an existing
standard (or maybe a subset of an existing standard).

I didn't want to wade into that swamp for the 1.0 version of the payment
protocol.


> Right now, i would simply
> put that into "memo" and come up with my own serialisation mechanism.
>

"Two Burgers, one Club Mate" seems pretty user-friendly.

Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX
> (unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK?
>

No, because the Payment->PaymentACK communication round-trip is done in
one, non-persistent http request-response round-trip.

I don't think we want to allow merchants to push messages to the wallet
(wouldn't take long for merchants to use the opportunity to push annoying
advertising at me, I think), and I don't think we want wallets to poll the
merchant. Although maybe a payment protocol version 2.0 feature could be a
PaymentACK extension that says "ask me how the transaction is going at THIS
URL in THIS many minutes."

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson <span d=
ir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@petersson.at" target=3D"_blank">an=
dreas@petersson.at</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I was just reviewing the integration work to=
 integrate the Payment<br>
Protocol into our products. Is there any notion of a standardized<br>
invoice serialisation? If i pay for two Burgers and one Club Mate, how<br>
would my Bitcoin Wallet be able to know that?</blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoicing tha=
t include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message could=
 easily encapsulate one of them in an &#39;invoice&#39; field extension. Or=
 we could reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I&#39;d rather u=
se an existing standard (or maybe a subset of an existing standard).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I didn&#39;t want to wade into that swamp for the 1.0 v=
ersion of the payment protocol.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">
 Right now, i would simply<br>
put that into &quot;memo&quot; and come up with my own serialisation mechan=
ism.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&quot;Two Burgers, one Club Mate&q=
uot; seems pretty user-friendly.=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">

Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX<br>
(unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK?<br></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>No, because the Payment-&gt;PaymentACK communication=
 round-trip is done in one, non-persistent http request-response round-trip=
.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t think we want to allow merchants to p=
ush messages to the wallet (wouldn&#39;t take long for merchants to use the=
 opportunity to push annoying advertising at me, I think), and I don&#39;t =
think we want wallets to poll the merchant. Although maybe a payment protoc=
ol version 2.0 feature could be a PaymentACK extension that says &quot;ask =
me how the transaction is going at THIS URL in THIS many minutes.&quot;</di=
v>
<div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div>

--e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13--