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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1V7BbO-0002ik-Ej
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:49:06 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V7BbN-0005v6-RO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:49:06 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x14so461557ief.26
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.124.10 with SMTP id me10mr636141igb.40.1375912140628;
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP17xEKcPOvQEBuDs-JXaMtEuOcRp8UvH4dvVDc=PyyqsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhb3WOYnWRc020QbGwE0W4XeWWmXXTqYyAqrtB7h0+b8A@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2+D4xu0t2efRPfg0t5gD8RRBk=KQEJH+0FF5J=vBmwiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBheF45bsx5it-0v1QjDW--t5UkZZjNjf9wt3d7XgUXLgw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP17xEKcPOvQEBuDs-JXaMtEuOcRp8UvH4dvVDc=PyyqsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:49:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBirjUdXu+kWnxpX9Shahf9dxBnGbMF+r75oduej7QFrmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.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
(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: 1V7BbN-0005v6-RO
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 21:49:06 -0000
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>
>> My concerns here are:
>> * Making sure wallet applications can function without supporting the
>> P2P protocol (which drops a huge implementation overhead for simple -
>> perhaps hardware-based - wallets)
>
>
> How would such wallets get transactions into their wallet in the first
> place?
By connecting to some other client, presumably. Have a small hardware
client that is able to do payments via NFC/QR/... directly with a
merchant, and can get 'recharged' by connecting with your desktop
client, for example. Maybe too futuristic to be a concern, but it
nicely illustrates how doing direct sender-to-receiver negotiation can
help decoupling tasks.
> I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but doing more work to
> prevent transactions being announced to the network feels weird.
Ok.
--
Pieter
|
