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; 
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
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>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol for Face-to-face Payments
Precedence: list

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).