Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3aArZV1jCL8OsksGxQO03Cs=CKM_4L3NB1=qGo=GMHdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3aArZV1jCL8OsksGxQO03Cs=CKM_4L3NB1=qGo=GMHdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:43:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0f8By2g9zKzfB7FLiMh6_aMk2iGO1Uesdqib_-Ok-1sA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6541f94b4a74304cb171044
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment protocol thoughts
Precedence: list

--0016e6541f94b4a74304cb171044
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I agree we need a payment protocol, but instead of thinking of all of the
things we might possibly want I would like to solve a few boring problems
that we have right now.

Absolutely critical:

+ Bitcoin addresses by themselves are insecure against man-in-the-middle
attacks. We need a payment protocol so if you get a donation link for
"Bitcoin Foundation" in an email message and click on it you can be
reasonably certain that your coins will actually go to the Foundation and
not some hacker at your ISP that modified the email message.

+ After sending payment I should have a receipt that proves I followed the
payee's instructions, so if the payee says they never received the funds I
can prove that it wasn't my fault.

+ Protocol for gathering signatures from multiple devices
(extension/variation of the basic payment protocol, I think).

Not absolutely necessary, but I think v1 should have it anyway:

+ Where-to-send-refund information included with payments, so
overpayments/refunds can be handled efficiently and displayed intelligently
in the customer's wallet.


Everything else I think can wait.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--0016e6541f94b4a74304cb171044
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>I agree we need a payment protocol, but instead of thinking of all of =
the things we might possibly want I would like to solve a few boring proble=
ms that we have right now.</div><div><br></div><div>Absolutely critical:</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><div>+ Bitcoin addresses by themselves are insecure against =
man-in-the-middle attacks. We need a payment protocol so if you get a donat=
ion link for &quot;Bitcoin Foundation&quot; in an email message and click o=
n it you can be reasonably certain that your coins will actually go to the =
Foundation and not some hacker at your ISP that modified the email message.=
</div>
<div><br></div><div>+ After sending payment I should have a receipt that pr=
oves I followed the payee&#39;s instructions, so if the payee says they nev=
er received the funds I can prove that it wasn&#39;t my fault.</div><div>
<br></div><div>+ Protocol for gathering signatures from multiple devices (e=
xtension/variation of the basic payment protocol, I think).</div><div><br><=
/div><div>Not absolutely necessary, but I think v1 should have it anyway:</=
div>
<div><br></div><div>+ Where-to-send-refund information included with paymen=
ts, so overpayments/refunds can be handled efficiently and displayed intell=
igently in the customer&#39;s wallet.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div>Everything else I think can wait.</div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gav=
in Andresen<br><br>

--0016e6541f94b4a74304cb171044--