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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andreas@petersson.at>) id 1VBXjU-0001Td-HX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:15:28 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from petersson.at ([213.239.210.117])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VBXjT-0003Su-5L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:15:28 +0000
Received: by petersson.at (Postfix, from userid 65534)
id A3C4D19A063; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:15:20 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on petersson.at
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
Received: from [192.168.0.199] (chello084114039092.14.vie.surfer.at
[84.114.39.92])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: andreas)
by petersson.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FCE119A063
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:15:20 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <521298F0.20108@petersson.at>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:15:12 +0200
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64;
rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-2.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1VBXjT-0003Su-5L
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 22:15:28 -0000
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? Right now, i would simply
put that into "memo" and come up with my own serialisation mechanism.
Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX
(unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK?
-Andreas
|
