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
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 184F84D3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935B621A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 445901080053;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150810:jrn@jrn.me.uk::E9VyfNScKFYgZj3p:hrom
X-Hashcash: 1:25:150810:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::L+JqUzLkcQwEMQNx:atIAP
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:40:58 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <55C75FC8.6070807@jrn.me.uk> <201508092346.20301.luke@dashjr.org>
<55C8EE2A.3030309@jrn.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <55C8EE2A.3030309@jrn.me.uk>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201508101841.00173.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative chain support for payment protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:23 -0000
On Monday, August 10, 2015 6:32:10 PM Ross Nicoll wrote:
> BTW, did you mean to take this off-list?
No, accidental. I'll re-CC it on this email.
> On 10/08/2015 00:46, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 09, 2015 2:12:24 PM Ross Nicoll via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> BIP 70 currently lists two networks, main and test (inferred as
> >> testnet3) for payment protocol requests. This means that different
> >> testnets cannot be supported trivially, and the protocol cannot be used
> >> for alternative coins (or, lacks context to indicate which coin the
> >> request applies to, which is particularly dangerous in cases where coins
> >> share address prefixes).
> >
> > I don't see how address prefixes are relevant - the payment protocol
> > doesn't use addresses at all...
>
> Good point, trying to hard to preempt questions.
>
> >> I propose adding a new optional "genesis" field as a 16 byte sequence
> >> containing the SHA-256 hash of the genesis block of the network the
> >> request belongs to, uniquely identifying chains without any requirement
> >> for a central registry.
> >
> > Genesis blocks are not necessarily unique. For example, Litecoin and
> > Feathercoin share the same one.
>
> Had missed that, and there's no easy alternatives. BIP 44 chain IDs
> don't identify different testnets, and do not cover regtest at all.
Regtest isn't really a network at all, just a testing mode of Bitcoin Core...
> Most recent block hash could be used and also provides fork
> detection, but in doing so advertises if a merchant is on the wrong
> fork. Will think about it.
Is that a bad thing?
> > I'd appreciate initial feedback on the idea, and if there's no major
> > objections I'll raise this as a BIP.
>
> I don't see how this is related to improving Bitcoin...
>
> Well, mostly I'm trying not to avoid the situation where any accidental
> mixing of files is dangerous (funds can easily be sent on the wrong
> blockchain), nor with multiple standards (which is where we are at the
> moment). It improves things in avoiding future problems, rather than in
> the immediate term.
Sorry, I meant to stress that BIPs are for *Bitcoin* improvements
specifically. Things which only improve altcoins, while a perfectly fine thing
to standardise, are outside the scope of what belongs in a BIP.
Perhaps, however, this could be made to kill 2 birds with one stone, by
ensuring it addresses the need for payments made of bitcoins on a sidechain?
For this, a merchant who wants a sidechain payment would presumably be able to
provide a script from the main chain already, but an extension allowing
payment directly on the sidechain (at the customer's choice) avoids the need
to round-trip it...
Luke
|
