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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1Td8U1-0000py-K7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:53:01 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Td8U0-0007cT-Mf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:53:01 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id g24so4084691qab.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:52:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=on1j3Fj+im4wR9fdk/2MQQpRUeo2RYepmuuLoPSyIx4=;
b=UUPtwvsvQPK7APkhxskdWRXSUUIrHVq984pbKWblt5xGlXbhilzz/AP9QKHUciBPYV
dVYft4GO6bXW1gfB+We7opJZPZ08cXGxPGLPXU1WI5uWqaZyoPcm0/PEwETgkU7cLyiz
iaIoC/nhnveAITfJSyiproC3LHRlZ0TDsX5HfNDbLbfE7zcnYUVnohnJv6xoLfUljaM2
+UgtnASJDXgTIEljzl5TntETMCS9rPSuGzBIKYA2+5BFbtz1pkPTMO06GLt99zzrRgk1
+xnhmHYnlR2h51unUbtEzK9wfwFO+dotWSMoKfo9vVLZo2iHw6ieg6jmHK2rFnEDQtFe
yeFw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.173.76 with SMTP id o12mr14531347qaz.46.1353973975192;
Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.97.6 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:52:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:4830:1603:2:21c:c0ff:fe79:c8c2]
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpe6x_aB_-Q5VLh164eoqqqwWBa1sy=UE-0u=jAD2+xTXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmvvOBpM+HvnHuhqaRAFqBL4qyc6uI6G2mNDyAe8UtliI6N6bln2qybEpo9USvYusxdxema
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1Td8U0-0007cT-Mf
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
Invoices/Payments/Receipts
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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:53:01 -0000
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the next big "lets all agree to do things the same way" thing
> I think we should tackle. I'm particularly looking for feedback from
> other bitcoin client developers, even if it is just a quick "looks
> reasonable, if everybody else is going to do it then I will
> (eventually) too..."
Comments:
1) Payment message should include ability to specify the transaction
_or_ a transaction id sent via normal means over the network.
2) I think a significant bitcoin userbase will want to operate outside
the full root-CA chain. Just look at https:// websites now.
Self-signed certs are quite common, because it is easier, while being
more secure than http://
So some provision for self-signed certs, a use case in wide use
elsewhere, or equivalent thereof, seems reasonable.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com
|
