Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <5E988ED7-845D-4982-9240-155AACD20F66@coinqy.com>
References: <B097D5C5-8E9E-461D-8FF3-58A661AFB3CB@coinqy.com>
	<CANEZrP0u-yoS4Sx2sC9uCf0xnzm-g1gYP8atUQO9-s3PW2kYKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<C9BF4A1A-5363-4725-8CFC-9EFE0C0B6B15@coinqy.com>
	<CANEZrP3pU__65h3VFEshtHuXE-aXWkRR47QPXXMNmBrBNcb=SQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5E988ED7-845D-4982-9240-155AACD20F66@coinqy.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:32:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1tn_j-bjcbokq-egVhS_x7M-L06bLb8toJeTg6oT+mcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Mark van Cuijk <mark@coinqy.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6ac48dce87f04ff40f595
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal
Precedence: list

--047d7bd6ac48dce87f04ff40f595
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> I referred to your idea in
> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html> which
> is indeed not the proposal itself.
>

Right, gotcha. Had forgotten about that.

Indeed there is another signature, which is to authenticate the payment
> delegation. If you take it into account in the signature count, then your
> proposal has three signatures.
>

Yes, I see now, you are right. A mandate type system is probably simpler
indeed.

So what now? To be honest my next priority with BIP70 was to formalise the
extensions process, I've been dragging my feet over that because I'm
working on other things. And then after that to knock some heads together
over at BitPay/Coinbase and get them to put useful text in the memo field
instead of random numbers. Baby steps ....

--047d7bd6ac48dce87f04ff40f595
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>I refer=
red to your idea in=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-de=
velopment@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html" target=3D"_blank">https://ww=
w.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.htm=
l</a>=C2=A0which is indeed not the proposal itself.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, gotcha. Had forgotten about t=
hat.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-=
wrap:break-word">
<div class=3D""><div>Indeed there is another signature, which is to authent=
icate the payment delegation. If you take it into account in the signature =
count, then your proposal has three signatures.<br></div></div></div></bloc=
kquote>
<div><br></div><div>Yes, I see now, you are right. A mandate type system is=
 probably simpler indeed.</div><div><br></div><div>So what now? To be hones=
t my next priority with BIP70 was to formalise the extensions process, I=
9;ve been dragging my feet over that because I&#39;m working on other thing=
s. And then after that to knock some heads together over at BitPay/Coinbase=
 and get them to put useful text in the memo field instead of random number=
s. Baby steps ....</div>
</div></div></div>

--047d7bd6ac48dce87f04ff40f595--