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 ) id 1YQxai-0001Pu-An for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:30:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YQxag-0002fg-MS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:30:56 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YQxaZ-00071A-7Z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:30:47 +0100 Received: from f052018132.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.18.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:30:47 +0100 Received: from andreas by f052018132.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:30:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:30:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20150222190839.GA18527@odo.localdomain> <54EA5A1C.2020701@AndySchroder.com> <54EA60D9.8000001@voskuil.org> <54EA66F5.2000302@AndySchroder.com> <54EAD884.8000205@AndySchroder.com> <54EAFC1C.9080502@voskuil.org> <54EBB10D.8020502@voskuil.org> <54EBC187.2050600@voskuil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052018132.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YQxag-0002fg-MS Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin at POS using BIP70, NFC and offline payments - implementer feedback 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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:30:56 -0000 On 02/24/2015 11:41 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Does this not also require the BT publication of the script for a P2SH > address? > > > You mean if the URI you're serving is like this? > > bitcoin:3aBcD........?bt=.... > > Yes it would. I guess then, the server would indicate both the script, > and the key within that script that it wanted to use. A bit more complex > but would still work to save URI space. What if the script doesn't use any key at all? Somehow this "re-using" the fallback address idea feels less and less appealing to me. I think we should add our own parameter and let go of fallback addresses as soon as possible. If will waste space during the transition period, but after that it should make no difference any more.