Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OskyEbsEmhrUayshg56Cr_q_6O4edRmdM5jDh3Pb=WGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJCJ77FkRGzTNLxOaJifKWLeC2wJ5usYf571MVOOugtMRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0OskyEbsEmhrUayshg56Cr_q_6O4edRmdM5jDh3Pb=WGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:48:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJABgJ0XCovZ+UW1ckSpdM_Yet2xaNx2-MGXMLaATN3hyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration?
Precedence: list

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are major gaps that the payment protocol doesn't cover.
>
> There are several deployed use cases where you are provided/request an
> address, an API provides one, and one or more incoming payments arrive
> as the user sends them over minutes/hours/days/weeks.

Couldn't these services return a payment message instead of an address?

I agree that there is currently an UI issue here: there is no way in
current wallets to store a payment message and pay to it later. We
will need something like that for recurring payments as well.

Bitcoin addresses were never designed with extensibility in mind.
Before the payment protocol there have been lots of ideas to add
functionality to them, but the underlying idea that they have to be
handled by users manually means that they have to be as short as
possible, which is a conflicting aim with extensibility...

Wladimir