1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <C3A3E8C1-CBAB-4FF7-8944-BE65B41BBDD9@bitsofproof.com>
References: <CANEZrP0AwR3WgHfwYWcrC9Z_MHPDwymWXAQwp7D8XZ+o2FsK8g@mail.gmail.com>
<612FFAAD-14FF-4261-927D-BD2E0F287257@bitsofproof.com>
<D7D06593-1987-490A-8DCD-21922E022E39@bitsofproof.com>
<CABsx9T1POJ3KTqSz_c=SdYTg=EKWa9jqjOpHPZoMoPGXozsvJA@mail.gmail.com>
<85A1792C-502E-4AC6-B8BC-A10C8FC1917F@bitsofproof.com>
<CANEZrP26+hWJaFYkZ2oUKhr9FQ03CXCdvt8V1Mm4mGJaPCy2Hw@mail.gmail.com>
<C3A3E8C1-CBAB-4FF7-8944-BE65B41BBDD9@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:34:59 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xUSiPpT-QHcm4J3YxhUIakeKAh4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1suCiiJEctAZ4FXMvNXsg8p1avS2CY3yJ8W=_MTBBTig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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: 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
<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">Supporting BIP70 by BitPay or BopShop is a cake =
since it does no more then they did without it.<br>
I am not in opposition but see no reason to be enthusiastic about it. I wil=
l once the spec goes<br>
further than what was possible before.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">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?</div></div>
--047d7bd6c6446033b504f5ad486f--
|
