Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <andreas@petersson.at>) id 1TgV0J-0003hd-9q
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:32:15 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from petersson.at ([213.239.210.117])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1TgV0H-000809-RG
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:32:15 +0000
Received: by petersson.at (Postfix, from userid 65534)
	id 46B6B1A075; Thu,  6 Dec 2012 07:32:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on petersson.at
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED
	autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (chello084114039092.14.vie.surfer.at [84.114.39.92])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: andreas)
	by petersson.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB9521A045
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu,  6 Dec 2012 07:32:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50C03BDA.6010600@petersson.at>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 07:31:54 +0100
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CABsx9T09FYf2RTaMpmujt3qwTFc2JgnREH_7Hyk2mnCgb3CvAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CANEZrP233CytLs3PWBQ1TyuBTMv4sLGJkEMeGWYq5xRi+iLKew@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121129185330.GE6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CABsx9T35qD_xJEVw002eAhJ1kr6x5aMU7RpD+U84XEOZXmXcYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2riPBViBqAOWfY9uSQwoEm=gN108JU988XvouMbai1Ug@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T023aw11cq6iiZhT3cgfNYJXr=qG40Fzc7rYZOimJ=62w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T023aw11cq6iiZhT3cgfNYJXr=qG40Fzc7rYZOimJ=62w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1TgV0H-000809-RG
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:32:15 -0000

During/before the Payment Request there should be a method to exchange 
the public keys to be able to generate a common multisig address.
Should this be handled in a different protocol, or be included in this 
spec?
Or is there a method for the customer to verify that the specified BIP16 
Output contains his address and the one from an escrow service?

--
Andreas