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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1V7Bgx-0007R2-82
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:54:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.181; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V7Bgw-0006lQ-Aw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:54:51 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x14so469946ief.26
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.124.10 with SMTP id me10mr646900igb.40.1375912484939;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
<20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:54:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhTYTiW-7btDuNJKqv8nMiZTUzMU2c+N+YcUVf1EejNJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1V7Bgw-0006lQ-Aw
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:54:51 -0000
I see payment URIs rather as a replacement for bitcoin: URI rather
than an extension. It solves everything they did in a much cleaner
way, Given that bitcoin: have gotten some traction, we probably want
to reuse the moniker, but replace the rest entirely. In other words,
if a request is specified, nothing else should be.
There is just no useful way to combine them either - payments
generalize destinations to arbitrary scripts, messages are handled
inline, amounts are defined inline. And if you want to rely on the
payment infrastructure to work, you cannot risk people using the
old-style static address in the URI.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
> Very brief comment on BIP 72:
>
> I wonder if there should be some discussion included in the
> specification as to how the BIP 21 amount, message and label
> parameters should be processed when the payment protocol is used.
>
> Presumably amount should be completely ignored? But is the total
> amount requestd by the PaymentRequest required to match the amount
> parameter (when present)? Is the client permitted to complain if they
> don't?
>
> And what about message? Presumably the memo from PaymentDetails
> should take precedence, but if it's not present, and message is?
>
> I think this is an area perhaps more suited to SHOULDs and MAYs rather
> than MUSTs, but it is probably worthy of mention...
>
> roy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
|
