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 ) id 1WTZkH-0004IW-CM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:35:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.43; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTZkG-0007An-JH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:35:05 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id eb12so6388806oac.16 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.157.228 with SMTP id wp4mr7636125oeb.39.1396024499251; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <612FFAAD-14FF-4261-927D-BD2E0F287257@bitsofproof.com> <85A1792C-502E-4AC6-B8BC-A10C8FC1917F@bitsofproof.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:34:59 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xUSiPpT-QHcm4J3YxhUIakeKAh4 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6c6446033b504f5ad486f X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WTZkG-0007An-JH Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 70 refund field X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:35:05 -0000 --047d7bd6c6446033b504f5ad486f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Supporting BIP70 by BitPay or BopShop is a cake since it does no more then > they did without it. > I am not in opposition but see no reason to be enthusiastic about it. I > will once the spec goes > further than what was possible before. > So, if e.g. Trezor ships a firmware update that uses BIP70 to present signed payment identities on the screen, would you support it then? --047d7bd6c6446033b504f5ad486f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Supporting BIP70 by BitPay or BopShop is a cake = since it does no more then they did without it.
I am not in opposition but see no reason to be enthusiastic about it. I wil= l once the spec goes
further than what was possible before.

So, if e.g. Trezor = ships a firmware update that uses BIP70 to present signed payment identitie= s on the screen, would you support it then?
--047d7bd6c6446033b504f5ad486f--