blob: c5c7baecc0866cf3177df3a669241d6d8b79a8a2 (
plain)
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mark@coinqy.com>) id 1XSO8B-0003Ir-7K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:31:07 +0000
Received: from prei.vps.van-cuijk.nl ([79.170.90.37])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XSO88-0001De-QR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:31:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.29.45] (unknown [89.146.26.107])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mo_mark)
by prei.vps.van-cuijk.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1162A41BFF
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:11:50 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark van Cuijk <mark@coinqy.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.341412.1410515709.2178.bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:11:48 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4CC413B-D5A5-423C-9D56-463FCDBDDE08@coinqy.com>
References: <mailman.341412.1410515709.2178.bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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: 1XSO88-0001De-QR
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 10:31:07 -0000
On 12 Sep 2014, at 11:55 , =
bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
> 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 plan.
Do you have a list (possibly incomplete) of apps that perform this kind =
of checking? We=92re currently working with some parties in a supply =
chain to allow a consumer payment on a retail website to automatically =
pay supply chain parties, the way BIP70 allows with multiple outputs on =
a transaction. This behaviour would prohibit this use case.
/Mark=
|
