Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F12B35 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:41:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD0FB472 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36CB20A92; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:41:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:41:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sprovoost.nl; h= content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=T8WsiVkilurV9HhnDHRHJLA2ChDAxAkQU8bNhnE6B BI=; b=CsZwZTCA4XnTJ8MdUMTpLI3VUii88iSwLwluR52PvLZGlCh3epn0UcBPO +Xnx0BG/NhJHQltQb9Z4I4McDnGS8qIHld1MEdZg+ARWgNIKijPzLi2eSrzBunWo Ru2dVLS6FtuhS+WGHbDnbcQbkGkqwD/z6kAWCpoP2PNZb9BSpiZ2Na/yU/QwWuOp 3dXP9Avp0u1u6UjWJgWUDj291AotOiLutki/bP83/nXleKMsk8ymhU+663k6KcZI ZPA91lK6T+TmXqRVh3IiYznrXRnQhhhNJDpl5ISDwQv7rE8DG6feZOztBJnoOKQg LyG4IWWtAUyTHCoz15QgvbZMN8iWA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=T8WsiVkilurV9HhnDH RHJLA2ChDAxAkQU8bNhnE6BBI=; b=WkiF9Yvn/ipcjnVXFCYB60bnr6Ty6qvSJs ZLjzF+pTDP1tWK0fsliYKANSucl/kOSvTNh89UI453Af8A1plOq4BOBEKTV0M9eq x2dnwX39w0tRdxNFot6Hs9+AmzCkmsmPrS/WQZnLfFUYdHvbB0e+yPvLs7ND6XBu SdL5NvwKm8KIovaj+8dY2FsYm7vONZFI7Ak8kMJkqgPvw9WNnvt1TlY6kfaRFHQx v9Enl1+YyOa769WYUTB8itriYanKHKbc5X//pYA8qLcTEFWwOlBvM25wmQhItt/y 5BGzSzMtYeauRcx47NQv9HLFshJp8X5xQNI6J03tTUOq2H/IK3aQ== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: OD0rF08EZRJMQvOPkHt3cGGsJOq+s4TsPx/f0mKGRvDa 1506609705 Received: from [192.168.0.108] (unknown [78.96.80.234]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D14BB7E3BA; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:41:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Sjors Provoost Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FD38172E-AFA4-4F52-B218-F71CC044F8A3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.6\)) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:41:42 +0300 References: <20170927160654.GA12492@savin.petertodd.org> To: Andreas Schildbach , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <14496C9C-E291-4415-B07E-859853579D20@sprovoost.nl> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.6) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:44:28 +0000 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:41:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FD38172E-AFA4-4F52-B218-F71CC044F8A3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Op 28 sep. 2017, om 17:13 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev = het volgende geschreven: >=20 > On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 >>> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an >>> expiration time. >>=20 >> The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most = importantly requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or = printing it on an invoice is much easier, so I would expect people to = keep doing that. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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? Is it not allowed to scan the date even if it then sets the expires = field to the same (redundant) value? Sjors --Apple-Mail=_FD38172E-AFA4-4F52-B218-F71CC044F8A3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE7ZvfetalXiMuhFJCV/+b28wwEAkFAlnNCiYACgkQV/+b28ww EAnVdw/+LFE9VgxFdS5zTgnObAKMisdIsfggmaTzDAP0fjfEU6cBs64gR/SNn2HB AZKBCbiTWqXsm5Pb9YbwPh9UHPdhqHrp1ydUAQ9W6OC+Dq93iVoqQ6MElDGdTONR 4ME3PdOsxZhfqe+qGEydYCkonuDymhZOE4Jc4E6UuM7yft++zK7UIcN3m6sVYhzU VjxL4L/1KutoGEHLeBeQuJ7Rbe82wfLySJhdCrwJmYm4KxFxPc8hdH5M4P1CJVp7 +aBTtFAYlVITjKNnHQccQiEvk7pgcUmVS/AguAlhPKV/F4iBh5KLw2jVFW4a66Ep RoIVV0RehMnMGJGEogzRrK3ijXchiNnP5LncGXx3B5b2VrwZeLDN+u4NWvq1iqik oN5N3jflyAiRxbm7m1t7/Fcq+jfreBVW3+y+0o79o4H+npy45OBsV+LiqKibnjMx Ve1Zv2SwxH20zMOM8IZ0ymAWmS4NeQImHut20mgmHf/oeV5n+fy09y2JXCbCvcCJ PPiIPDg9UOhRhTPrwrpg84uHapukrfaRcZPjgN+XPtQgRdPmJyfonLT92HJN3eYS 9l/gc8/8AwJWoPisCI7kSAWUtomfq9WXoK4sR2f9QTTAkiyp4OpfMs0ZsxCOP08m kTMY+WLDmtjkj9T9UuxW2Fgtrjr82bWiJB8n7oMQIKMSAXsy3tk= =BXFq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_FD38172E-AFA4-4F52-B218-F71CC044F8A3--