Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WTYcm-0000eb-Im for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:23:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTYcl-00036f-Ji for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:23:16 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n16so6312249oag.31 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:23:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.173.99 with SMTP id bj3mr1684942oec.55.1396020190286; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:23:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <85A1792C-502E-4AC6-B8BC-A10C8FC1917F@bitsofproof.com> References: <612FFAAD-14FF-4261-927D-BD2E0F287257@bitsofproof.com> <85A1792C-502E-4AC6-B8BC-A10C8FC1917F@bitsofproof.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:23:10 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TNyLh7qS7uaKoMUpULQ0WLjYgyo Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba9818c8a9b7404f5ac47fc X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WTYcl-00036f-Ji Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:23:16 -0000 --047d7ba9818c8a9b7404f5ac47fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So I take it BOPShop won't be supporting BIP70 then? :( On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > I have nothing against incremental development. This will however not pick > up until it offers some incremental benefit compared to current payment > processor solutions, > such as e.g. > > 1. Symmetrical. One can also offer a payment. > 2. Aggregating and Netting. Handle multiple installments and/or net with > previous cash flows. > 3. More secure. One has a check not only on the payment address (which > already has one with https:// in the web shop scenario it is currently > able support) but not on the refund. > > > On 28.03.2014, at 15:01, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > >> May I ask how the current payment protocol is supposed to handle salaries? >> > > It doesn't. > > "walk before you run" and all that; lets see what problems we run into > with the minimal payment protocol we have now (like refund outputs you have > to remember forever) before we create an insurmountable set of problems by > trying to solve everything we can think of all at once. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > --047d7ba9818c8a9b7404f5ac47fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So I take it BOPShop won't be supporting BIP70 then? := (


On Fri= , Mar 28, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>= ; wrote:
I h= ave nothing against incremental development. This will however not pick up = until it offers some incremental benefit compared to current payment proces= sor solutions,=C2=A0
such as e.g.

1. Symmetrical. One can also off= er a payment.
2. Aggregating and Netting. Handle multiple install= ments and/or net with previous cash flows.
3. More secure. One ha= s a check not only on the payment address (which already has one with https= :// in the web shop scenario it is currently able support) but not on the r= efund.


On 28.03.2014, at 15:01, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>= wrote:

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Tamas Blummer <= span dir=3D"ltr"><tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
May I as= k how the current payment protocol is supposed to handle salaries?

It doesn't.

"walk bef= ore you run" and all that; lets see what problems we run into with the= minimal payment protocol we have now (like refund outputs you have to reme= mber forever) before we create an insurmountable set of problems by trying = to solve everything we can think of all at once.

--
--
Gavin Andresen


--047d7ba9818c8a9b7404f5ac47fc--