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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <sipa@ulyssis.org>) id 1RsBCu-0004HS-6B
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:45:00 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.129]
helo=cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RsBCo-0008Ta-IJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:45:00 +0000
X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: sipa@ulyssis.org
X-Spam-Status: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-48.798, required 5,
autolearn=disabled, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 0.00,
FREEMAIL_FROM 0.00, KUL_SMTPS -50.00, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 1.20)
X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean
X-KULeuven-ID: 0C4171380B8.A9BBC
X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Received: from smtps01.kuleuven.be (smtpshost01.kulnet.kuleuven.be
[134.58.240.74])
by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4171380B8;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp.ulyssis.org (mail.ulyssis.student.kuleuven.be
[193.190.253.235])
by smtps01.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD47E31E70A;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from wop.ulyssis.org (wop.intern.ulyssis.org [192.168.0.182])
by smtp.ulyssis.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE94010052;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:46:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wop.ulyssis.org (Postfix, from userid 615)
id CE95987C1AB; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:44 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:44 +0100
X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20120131104443.GB19161@ulyssis.org>
References: <1327881329.49770.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<jg88ed$i85$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CA+s+GJDLoUG43hdLKYMwehBO9qqE=YCm7eJ2RN-TTTY_+OLp=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKm8k+2wrsNDxEQXjZmqWQtO5DHiTjc0SgU_+QCU_FybeFFY6g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+2wrsNDxEQXjZmqWQtO5DHiTjc0SgU_+QCU_FybeFFY6g@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
CUSTOM_MED 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit,
and not from a mailing list
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RsBCo-0008Ta-IJ
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20)
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, 31 Jan 2012 10:45:00 -0000
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:01:00AM +0000, Gary Rowe wrote:
> Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represents
> Bitcoin's pulse, there is no guarantee that a block will be discovered at
> any particular moment. From a merchant perspective the main point of the
> expires field is to limit risk against currency movement (immediate cash
> out) or inventory movement (time limited offer). I have difficulty seeing a
> good use case that would need a block. People have been co-ordinating
> events based on a UTC timestamp for decades and I think we should stick
> with it.
For merchant purposes, I believe URI's containing a static pubkeyhash-address
are only a temporary solution until more elaborate solutions that deal with
all concerns appear (tagging transactions, feedback to the merchant, making
the receiver responsible for inclusion, certificates that a payment was
accepted, authentication, ...). I believe static addresses are too limited
for this purpose, and we shouldn't be trying to extend them with too many
features.
There have been discussions about more dynamic approaches (such as HTTP
communication to negotiate an address) here, and I've written my own
proposal as well (https://gist.github.com/1237788). The details are not
really relevant at this time, but these dynamic approaches seem a much
better way of dealing with what you're trying to add to the bitcoin URI
system now.
My 2 cents: keep bitcoin URI's simple for now.
--
Pieter
|
