Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:03:58 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CAPg+sBhTYTiW-7btDuNJKqv8nMiZTUzMU2c+N+YcUVf1EejNJA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhTYTiW-7btDuNJKqv8nMiZTUzMU2c+N+YcUVf1EejNJA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
Precedence: list

But the reality is that in many applications you need to provide a
single URL.

Consider existing point-of-sale systems that display QR codes for the
user to scan.  They live within the limitations of existing bitcoin
URLs, but would no doubt benefit from the payments protocol.

It's not realistic for the terminal operator in a retail establishment
to have to select which protocol will be used before generating the QR
code - so the effect of your proposal is to require lowest common
denominator and effectively prevent such systems from using the
payments protocol (at least until it is sufficiently ubiquitous that
they feel happy to simply require its use).

roy

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:54:44PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> I see payment URIs rather as a replacement for bitcoin: URI rather
> than an extension. It solves everything they did in a much cleaner
> way, Given that bitcoin: have gotten some traction, we probably want
> to reuse the moniker, but replace the rest entirely. In other words,
> if a request is specified, nothing else should be.
> 
> There is just no useful way to combine them either - payments
> generalize destinations to arbitrary scripts, messages are handled
> inline, amounts are defined inline. And if you want to rely on the
> payment infrastructure to work, you cannot risk people using the
> old-style static address in the URI.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
> > Very brief comment on BIP 72:
> >
> > I wonder if there should be some discussion included in the
> > specification as to how the BIP 21 amount, message and label
> > parameters should be processed when the payment protocol is used.
> >
> > Presumably amount should be completely ignored?  But is the total
> > amount requestd by the PaymentRequest required to match the amount
> > parameter (when present)?  Is the client permitted to complain if they
> > don't?
> >
> > And what about message?  Presumably the memo from PaymentDetails
> > should take precedence, but if it's not present, and message is?
> >
> > I think this is an area perhaps more suited to SHOULDs and MAYs rather
> > than MUSTs, but it is probably worthy of mention...
> >
> > roy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
> > It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
> > Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
> > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>