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
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <kalle@rosenbaum.se>) id 1Z1Gw4-0007ZK-Ju
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:27:04 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com ([209.85.192.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z1Gw3-0007q8-FE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:27:04 +0000
Received: by qgg3 with SMTP id 3so14404801qgg.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=VVSFus36XxlmAG/x6jkF0rnTFU8RQdRNzF04akYZkgY=;
b=mfR8JQs8MAS205EfrIKowsGw10pXMwbACL4XQa1MMgctPXsyS4z4PTVC79wcEVwgsQ
ARFc001t2Cw4ingEawpOF9LMul4oPj56qZwOnu9WunhpwXY82/N66bibcTR+58rZ431u
GAOuWQWEZ0ne2AVMGc9ebgZ1YCNPdfOfNY9dhmMggVTj30A9eImFQqRiUDysa2foIMrG
et4onEwX9tWy8tlWvZbwDeKYshQccRrsKp3RHjU2BZgYJppCvT6IDSj8t33NKfYigC3U
f2YG7SJXN/9UfZmbjyadWO3jxOeAPwOO/tM6zBP/wKrEBI9GGsTg2GAFjl/UvV3wgix3
DeRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGRF+b0uIioCwxzigRluMfSmZID6Wxn3l+RQN/vfPloWtsdj7hTEKsqi+70D+odXDfV7Z+
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.16.33 with SMTP id a33mr17133234qkh.51.1433607641998;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.145.9 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjsjtSamZaBd-6tLLv0qjAHvEBgSbh4HBCUV2Z7hpioGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPswA9w5Sgg6AV=9Pqx5sqbkdrwv9LmwoxmMu7xZsQSNXtmZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjtovFpLoibpVGLsNJXexBcoiYzjrvctraXntCUZBJsGg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPswA9zhB4GV=JJ28RRLFNrkVwExUv36zujmuAjwPd6rG6rvzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjsjtSamZaBd-6tLLv0qjAHvEBgSbh4HBCUV2Z7hpioGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 18:20:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPswA9wpynPn+HHzL0aTnrWKn3thKXwEfG459TTByX3QcYRubg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z1Gw3-0007q8-FE
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for Proof of Payment
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:27:04 -0000
>> The idea is to simplify implementation. Existing software can be used
>> as is to sign and validate PoPs. But I do agree that it would be a
>> cleaner specification if we would make the PoP invalid as a
>> transaction. I'm open to changes here. I do like the idea to prepend a
>> constant string. But that would require changes in transaction signing
>> and validation code, wouldn't it?
>
>
> Yes, of course. An alternative is adding a 21M BTC output at the end, or
> bitflipping the txin prevout hashes, or another reversible transformation on
> the transaction data that is guaranteed to invalidate it.
If we do decide to make Pops invalid as transactions, there are a lot
of ways to do that. I guess the main question is if we should make
Pops invalid as transactions or not. So far I prefer to keep them
valid for the above reason.
>
> I think that the risk of asking people to sign something that is not an
> actual transaction, but could be used as one, is very scary.
>
I would feel comfortable doing it. It's just a matter of trusting your
wallet, which you already do with your ordinary transactions.
>>
>> > Also, I would call it "proof of transaction intent", as it's a
>> > commitment to
>> > a transaction and proof of its validity, but not a proof that an actual
>> > transaction took place, nor a means to prevent it from being double
>> > spent.
>>
>>
>> Naming is hard. I think a simpler name that explains what its main
>> purpose is (prove that you paid for something) is better than a name
>> that exactly tries to explain what it is.
>
>
> "Proof of Payment" indeed does make me think it's something that proves you
> paid. But as described, that is not what a PoP does. It proves the ability
> to create a particular transaction, and committing to it. There is no actual
> payment involved (plus, payment makes me think you're talking about BIP70
> payments, not simple Bitcoin transactions).
>
>>
>> "Proof of transaction
>> intent" does not help me understand what this is about. But I would
>> like to see more name suggestions. The name does not prevent people
>> from using it for other purposes, ie internet over telephone network.
>
>
> I don't understand why something like "Proof of Transaction Intent" would be
> incompatible with internet over telephone network either...
>
No, I meant that it's ok to call it Proof of Payment even though
people may use it for other stuff.
> --
> Pieter
>
|
