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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1V7Azl-0000O0-2J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:10:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.42; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V7Azj-0005s8-Al
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:10:13 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j13so25188wgh.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.183.108 with SMTP id el12mr3229985wic.55.1375909805120;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.82.198 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhb3WOYnWRc020QbGwE0W4XeWWmXXTqYyAqrtB7h0+b8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhb3WOYnWRc020QbGwE0W4XeWWmXXTqYyAqrtB7h0+b8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:10:05 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1V7Azj-0005s8-Al
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 21:10:13 -0000
RE: making the bitcoin address in the bitcoin: URI optional:
Ok, I'm convinced, sometimes merchants won't want or need backwards
compatibility and sometimes it won't make sense for them to put an
arbitrary bitcoin: address there.
RE: should the customer's machine not broadcast the transaction:
I'd like to hear from other wallet implementors. Do you have a notion
of 'locked inputs' ? The tricky bit in constructing a transaction but
not broadcasting it right away is the inputs must be locked, so
they're not accidentally double-spent.
I'd also like to hear from merchants: any issue with your payment
processing server having "broadcast transaction" functionality?
My biggest worry is that the payment protocol will not get wide
support if it is too hard to implement.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
