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
|
Return-Path: <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 354A5B1F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:07:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027B847E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:07:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>)
id 1dxaOx-00010J-OC for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:06:59 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:06:56 +0200
Message-ID: <oqj369$18u$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <20170927160654.GA12492@savin.petertodd.org>
<oqihpf$5gc$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<B5DE4E92-C5B3-4C01-A148-E3C46C897323@sprovoost.nl>
<oqj02k$fj9$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<14496C9C-E291-4415-B07E-859853579D20@sprovoost.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <14496C9C-E291-4415-B07E-859853579D20@sprovoost.nl>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_ALL,RDNS_NONE
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to
BIP-173
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:07:16 -0000
On 09/28/2017 04:41 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is
>> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts
>> as the invoice.
>
> True and the more complicated fields, like a digital signature, are optional. Are you suggesting BIP-70 payment requests should be rendered with bech32? How long would those be if it's just the address and expiration date?
I've not yet progressed that far in segwit support, but I can't think of
a reason why not. You can request coins to any script using the payment
protocol.
Regarding size, I've had no problems putting (unsigned) payment request
messages into QR codes. I doubt paying to a native segwit address will
change much in size. Protobuf is very efficient.
>> Even more problematic, if you were to include an expiry date in a
>> BIP-173 address and put that into a payment request, wallets wouldn't be
>> allowed to parse that expiry date from the script without violating the
>> BIP70 spec.
>
> Do tools that generate BIP-70 payment requests generate addresses themselves or are those input manually by a user? In the former case, I assume it could avoid setting the optional expiration date?
The BIP70 spec doesn't limit you on this, I guess either does exist.
Having two (or more!) optional expiration date adds unnecessary
complexity to the specs and implementations. E.g. what if the two do not
match up?
> Is it not allowed to scan the date even if it then sets the expires field to the same (redundant) value?
What do you mean by "scan the date"?
|
