Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1V7EOk-00066N-RG
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:48:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com; 
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1V7EOj-0007T4-UV
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:48:14 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m46so2086466wev.36
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.189.9 with SMTP id ge9mr3578330wic.52.1375922887762;
	Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.82.198 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CAPg+sBhTYTiW-7btDuNJKqv8nMiZTUzMU2c+N+YcUVf1EejNJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:48:07 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3BgjYnsi_UgRM7r0auUgA6BMFjEbSy8kNs_uLBiak8ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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: 1V7EOj-0007T4-UV
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:48:15 -0000

I've updated the BIP 72 spec at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0072 so
the bitcoin address is optional:

"If the "request" parameter is provided and backwards compatibility is
not required, then the bitcoin address portion of the URI may be
omitted (the URI will be of the form: bitcoin:?request=... )."

The spec already said what should happen if both request and
address/amount/etc were given:

"it should ignore the bitcoin address/amount/label/message in the URI
and instead fetch a PaymentRequest message and then follow the payment
protocol"

I think this gives us a smooth, clear upgrade path.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen