1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
|
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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1VBYjh-0006e6-TC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 23:19:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VBYjh-0005EC-1g
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 23:19:45 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m46so4201516wev.8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.106.228 with SMTP id gx4mr10192993wib.9.1376954378862;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.156.163 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <521298F0.20108@petersson.at>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
<521298F0.20108@petersson.at>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:19:38 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3b--tfUmaxJxsXyM2f3Cw4M1oX1nX8o9WkW_haBmLctA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1VBYjh-0005EC-1g
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 23:19:46 -0000
--e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>wrote:
> I was just reviewing the integration work to integrate the Payment
> Protocol into our products. Is there any notion of a standardized
> invoice serialisation? If i pay for two Burgers and one Club Mate, how
> would my Bitcoin Wallet be able to know that?
No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoicing that
include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message could
easily encapsulate one of them in an 'invoice' field extension. Or we could
reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I'd rather use an existing
standard (or maybe a subset of an existing standard).
I didn't want to wade into that swamp for the 1.0 version of the payment
protocol.
> Right now, i would simply
> put that into "memo" and come up with my own serialisation mechanism.
>
"Two Burgers, one Club Mate" seems pretty user-friendly.
Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX
> (unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK?
>
No, because the Payment->PaymentACK communication round-trip is done in
one, non-persistent http request-response round-trip.
I don't think we want to allow merchants to push messages to the wallet
(wouldn't take long for merchants to use the opportunity to push annoying
advertising at me, I think), and I don't think we want wallets to poll the
merchant. Although maybe a payment protocol version 2.0 feature could be a
PaymentACK extension that says "ask me how the transaction is going at THIS
URL in THIS many minutes."
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson <span d=
ir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@petersson.at" target=3D"_blank">an=
dreas@petersson.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I was just reviewing the integration work to=
integrate the Payment<br>
Protocol into our products. Is there any notion of a standardized<br>
invoice serialisation? If i pay for two Burgers and one Club Mate, how<br>
would my Bitcoin Wallet be able to know that?</blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv>No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoicing tha=
t include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message could=
easily encapsulate one of them in an 'invoice' field extension. Or=
we could reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I'd rather u=
se an existing standard (or maybe a subset of an existing standard).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I didn't want to wade into that swamp for the 1.0 v=
ersion of the payment protocol.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">
Right now, i would simply<br>
put that into "memo" and come up with my own serialisation mechan=
ism.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>"Two Burgers, one Club Mate&q=
uot; seems pretty user-friendly.=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">
Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX<br>
(unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK?<br></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>No, because the Payment->PaymentACK communication=
round-trip is done in one, non-persistent http request-response round-trip=
.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think we want to allow merchants to p=
ush messages to the wallet (wouldn't take long for merchants to use the=
opportunity to push annoying advertising at me, I think), and I don't =
think we want wallets to poll the merchant. Although maybe a payment protoc=
ol version 2.0 feature could be a PaymentACK extension that says "ask =
me how the transaction is going at THIS URL in THIS many minutes."</di=
v>
<div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div>
--e89a8f13ed049fc6c604e4552c13--
|
