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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XSNZN-0000MA-3D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:55:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XSNZL-0001CO-0Q
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:55:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r10so214920igi.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 02:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.120.16 with SMTP id d16mr8073880icr.35.1410515701444;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 02:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.1.209 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 02:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <luuee6$as3$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <luuee6$as3$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:55:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAjPdLB3jn-U6NbN0LvBKz+C5fDdbdEhFPKXUiTjyZDEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(laanwj[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: 1XSNZL-0001CO-0Q
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP72 amendment proposal
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, 12 Sep 2014 09:55:09 -0000
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
> This is the discussion post corresponding to this PR:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/106
>
> "Amend BIP72 by an "h" parameter, which contains a hash of the
> PaymentRequest message that is fetched via the "r" parameter.
>
> The hash is meant to link the trust anchor (e.g. the QR code) to the
> payment request message in a secure way. This will solve the problem
> several apps are comparing address+amount fields as a workaround
> instead, preventing some advanced BIP70 usecases. When these apps read a
> matching hash, they need not compare any of the other fields.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I had no idea that some clients were comparing addresses and amounts
in the URI with the payment request for security, that seems like a
hacky and inflexible way. This is much better.
Wladimir
|
