Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.181; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f181.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0Nj2f4mSKNggGH4sXZTLYNwdVGO7uMSzN7V_vVKU-6w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201407151448.57223.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJHLa0Nj2f4mSKNggGH4sXZTLYNwdVGO7uMSzN7V_vVKU-6w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:18:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP30PLQAebOkoLUphR+6wnwyE7K_BX=bszF8T5UPvai-Lg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration?
Precedence: list

--089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Payment protocol just doesn't well the use cases of,
> * an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase
> * deposit addresses and deposit situations


This seems to be the key point of disagreement here. Wladimir and I think
it satisfies your requirement just fine. You disagree. Let's get to the
bottom of that.

A PaymentRequest with a zero valued pay-to-address output and an expiration
time, base58 encoded, would look very much like your extended address form.
I don't suggest anyone actually represents PaymentRequest's using base58
but it helps to see the conceptual analogue. There'd be a bit more stuff in
there like some varint and wiretype codes but we're talking a handful of
bytes. Functionally, it'd be identical.

Places like protocols or APIs that require a piece of text and cannot
handle a piece of binary data could be retrofitted into the new world by
accepting base58 encoded PaymentRequest's. This would be kind of silly
because it's fundamentally binary data, but we already do this so it's at
least consistently silly :)

--089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">Payment protocol just doesn&#39;t well the use c=
ases of,<br>

* an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase<br>
* deposit addresses and deposit situations</blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
This seems to be the key point of disagreement here. Wladimir and I think i=
t satisfies your requirement just fine. You disagree. Let&#39;s get to the =
bottom of that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>A PaymentRequest with a zero valued pay-to-address outp=
ut and an expiration time, base58 encoded, would look very much like your e=
xtended address form. I don&#39;t suggest anyone actually represents Paymen=
tRequest&#39;s using base58 but it helps to see the conceptual analogue. Th=
ere&#39;d be a bit more stuff in there like some varint and wiretype codes =
but we&#39;re talking a handful of bytes. Functionally, it&#39;d be identic=
al.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Places like protocols or APIs that require a piece of t=
ext and cannot handle a piece of binary data could be retrofitted into the =
new world by accepting base58 encoded PaymentRequest&#39;s. This would be k=
ind of silly because it&#39;s fundamentally binary data, but we already do =
this so it&#39;s at least consistently silly :)</div>
</div></div></div>

--089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39--