summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/bc/86727a4962e706fad81728a7fdd2385d71eecd
blob: ae478139d3e02b1ab234a025e844718ea7e5c4fc (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
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
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>) id 1YL89Z-00065R-U1
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:49 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.48 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.48;
	envelope-from=martin.habovstiak@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qg0-f48.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qg0-f48.google.com ([209.85.192.48])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YL89Y-0004Y0-Rr
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:49 +0000
Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id a108so26045897qge.7
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:34:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.88.1 with SMTP id y1mr37025197qal.91.1423564483311; Tue,
	10 Feb 2015 02:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.19.18 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:34:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M188whrv9VgV8UYBq+kcmgN9b6QQH7+wd7wQYNj8bd4Pcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAt2M18H0K99bmD4H_FRSeE+O9nGFDruCmo63GOQt1kxAdVBmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAt2M188whrv9VgV8UYBq+kcmgN9b6QQH7+wd7wQYNj8bd4Pcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CALkkCJbwzo=dRo-WG6kBg9YVYvE6hCy0YHnBa1U-EVhn4KNA9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TeKStnJ0aW4gSOKStmJv4pOLxaF0aWFr?=
	<martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
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
	(martin.habovstiak[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: 1YL89Y-0004Y0-Rr
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Standardizing automatic pre-negotiation
 of transaction terms with BIP70? (Emulating Amazon one-click purchase at
 all merchants)
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:50 -0000

Why would anyone want to do anything about payment before choosing
what he wants to buy and for what price? I've never used Amazon but
isn't filling a form with shipping information enough?

2015-02-10 11:21 GMT+01:00 Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>:
> BIP70 is a protocol for getting a user's wallet client communicate with a
> merchant's server in order to agree on details like where to send the
> payment, how much to send, what the shipping address is, sending a receipt
> back, and much more using various extensions that adds more functionality.
>
> There could even be advanced functionality for automatically negotiating
> terms. One example could be selecting a multisignature arbitrator both sides
> trust. Another could be to agree on the speed and type of delivery. Many
> more types of decisions could be automatically agreed upon.
>
> But as it is now, it is designed to be initiated at the time of payment. If
> you always want next-day delivery from online stores then you won't always
> know if that's an option until you've filled the digital basket and gone
> through checkout. If you only want to shop with an arbitrator involved same
> thing applies.
>
> Everything that BIP70 enables happens at the last step only, as it is right
> now.
>
> If there could be a BIP70 HTML tag on web shops that automatically triggered
> your wallet as soon as you visit the page, it would be possible for a
> browser extension that talks to your wallet to tell you right away if the
> web shop you're currently looking at has terms you consider acceptable or
> not (note: if your wallet client isn't installed on or linked to that same
> machine, a visible Qr code would be an acceptable alternative which you can
> scan in advance before you start shopping). This notification can even be
> automatically updated as you add and remove things from your cart and
> details like shipping options change.
>
> This would massively simplify the shipping experience and make every web
> shop feel like Amazon.
>
> Of course this has privacy implications and increases exposure to potential
> wallet exploits, but the wallet can ask you if you intend to shop or not at
> each site before it even connects and send any information at all in order
> to mitigate both of those problems. This way it should be reasonably safe.
>
> Another option would be to automatically connect but limit what data is sent
> in order to remain privacy preserving, until the user agrees to send private
> information.
>
> This second method would also open up for the merchant to other send
> relevant information such as details about various certifications from third
> parties, which can include a certification that shows they have been been
> audited and approved by by entity X for purpose Y. If your wallet has that
> entity whitelisted it will show you that certificate (for example "Acme
> Audits have audited and approves of Merchant M's privacy policy and data
> protection"). With a list of predefined types of certifications that the
> wallet understand and accepts, it could (by choice of the user) require a
> certificate to be present to even allow you to make a purchase (lack of
> required certifications would result in automatic denial). No certificate =
> your wallet never proceed to send private information.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Sent from my tablet
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>