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
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VOT2X-0000BX-4f
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VOT2V-0004NV-HN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:32 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id d7so1703560bkh.40
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.205.68.137 with SMTP id xy9mr1798221bkb.28.1380030745027;
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2BOWk4FOUx4eVHvXmdSgx3zo_o18J8YBi2Uc_WkBAXKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
<521298F0.20108@petersson.at>
<CABsx9T3b--tfUmaxJxsXyM2f3Cw4M1oX1nX8o9WkW_haBmLctA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2BOWk4FOUx4eVHvXmdSgx3zo_o18J8YBi2Uc_WkBAXKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:52:24 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GYNYYtwyoYTCiX5RQSoHnibF-CA
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0H9TVfQ3AGv6aBmS1DUa6MTWhSFAN1Jo4eimBEBQhPZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041556305669df04e721725b
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1VOT2V-0004NV-HN
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:33 -0000
--f46d041556305669df04e721725b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
BTW, on the "make qrcodes more scannable" front -- is it too late to change
BIP 72 so the new param is just "r" instead of "request"? Every byte helps
when it comes to qrcodes ...
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I think the confidence of the tx is not really the users concern anyway.
> They wrote it so they know it's valid. If the merchant disagrees for some
> reason then the user can find out, out of band when the goods/services are
> not delivered.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
>> AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
>> analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
>> Visit us today!
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
--f46d041556305669df04e721725b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">BTW, on the "make qrcodes more scannable" front =
-- is it too late to change BIP 72 so the new param is just "r" i=
nstead of "request"? Every byte helps when it comes to qrcodes ..=
.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 2=
0, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mik=
e@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">I think the confidence of the tx is not really the users c=
oncern anyway. They wrote it so they know it's valid. If the merchant d=
isagrees for some reason then the user can find out, out of band when the g=
oods/services are not delivered.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div cla=
ss=3D"h5">On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"=
><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandr=
esen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@petersson.at" target=3D"_blank">andr=
eas@petersson.at</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>
<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></=
div><div>No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoici=
ng that include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message=
could easily encapsulate one of them in an 'invoice' field extensi=
on. Or we could reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I'd ra=
ther use 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><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left: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><div>"Two Burgers, one Club =
Mate" seems pretty user-friendly.=C2=A0</div><div><div><br>
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-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><div>No, because the Payment->PaymentACK communi=
cation round-trip is done in one, non-persistent http request-response roun=
d-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>
<span><font color=3D"#888888">
<div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</font></span></div></div>
<br></div></div><div class=3D"im">-----------------------------------------=
-------------------------------------<br>
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and<br>
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,<br>
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.<br=
>
Visit us today!<br>
<a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D48897511&iu=
=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam=
pad/clk?id=3D48897511&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>___________________=
____________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--f46d041556305669df04e721725b--
|
