summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/c4/0b6d9b7095756636aa7fb63026a9de7c3e78e3
blob: e692a410b814404f800dab865a98b3a1e804c5f3 (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
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
Return-Path: <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEE3649B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:55:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (mail-qk0-f182.google.com
	[209.85.220.182])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EE55EB
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:55:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkfc129 with SMTP id c129so9317628qkf.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:55:12 -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:content-type;
	bh=2dYQ376fBW1xinLErRTO9gwbC+9s23xDQ57rW+TZwFc=;
	b=CFJNRiYILn5Vq7L35Q85ee6+lkgD6v2usuLMIV/DT4KVg5yYq7NWq5YmDvAZMLmuFY
	TI6p9Gzs4loBRnYpWxyCjcjQcTqh3YCM4HFSjMsPTwhcAjKDMZ3x2VdcesChepw5fbL4
	9l4OOTd/un43xDEM/VZSmln957gf5mfj/N9fPYPBAKUnvlnpAT5z/u1tntygAE2dXDLm
	Trk7zPqKL4IwFywnkHTMSx6qHHOS7HJNLdxKlKsL+S1hTwjS89URyE3J8EvJgJsG4ILp
	iCKyGEE89kr3vcYOU4HHhc+UTtTcNioKnGtMJxpwieACGeWIpqtf9KnEkWlwrFjvUxzv
	nTXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXjXmwNkNmUo44MoeYV051EXiEQA/bAWy8EHlOjcytfydPlPAK9rBiImO5kUtwK6iAkB73
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.17.195 with SMTP id 64mr18407467qkr.43.1437720912267;
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.127.227 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.127.227 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPswA9w8QaWV72UuGnitWWeDTr5MPKvzwrD5udmq_FQke-NGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPswA9w5Sgg6AV=9Pqx5sqbkdrwv9LmwoxmMu7xZsQSNXtmZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjtovFpLoibpVGLsNJXexBcoiYzjrvctraXntCUZBJsGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9zhB4GV=JJ28RRLFNrkVwExUv36zujmuAjwPd6rG6rvzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALJP9GCBJiofY7k2RJ460CuLuWQunHcx7EcLi1-d07v76Y-E2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9wqdbU0z8ydBt+9M0iQX0VSi1ce=dg3fR2_2bx3-vEqzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9z_xKY6v9=Ejh=01mZN0QCVo1e0RY1FTzXzS39i3tjgAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9xk5QYAXxQ6ES3cnNPeB1FTiiSJgLahLEkSk4CLpoM_QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBiWykR6RaHhbyYQbL=A5t1TmHgEmS_sC7jj9d3SUTMO9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9zycU0pwZKaHU9J3Tvg=ovLJ8TZ9OH6ebTPONaRaiOE8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhuth22+vAHyS2iwpze8X=-b2wJQ5s1z2FhZ1jsLXobgQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9yB3wfV1auXR=ggXjh+f1C3Qpkv8qP1miQwkc8R2_aBLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjp-BmSXhanOuKE0DN1wdfVwCtFwiAbPse1GLxy3+L3nA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9zzKvh6G+NqzTmhrNXMSWOPtZ2DGW2t_2Jrisy8x9m2qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhZCayaxNg_thO=nzxvuo-xZ-ZeZMXEVWb6Mw2POreOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9yFUAqFyNBFBnnwpT=B9RcdNssdjz-_KWbX5GuLM5Uyxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBigK7K2YVnhcU5Ysf0d0Gbp+GaNdGoKZCco5zvYLKDxFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9wLDpf0Q3aL=a+uaqkFecPgC4ASj73XVfj=MOrof-yh1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9z5fo5Vw_cSoUu1qtgU4kKf+W3FxREPJ5UpvvJUSi+doA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPswA9w8QaWV72UuGnitWWeDTr5MPKvzwrD5udmq_FQke-NGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:55:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPswA9ydvva=BqtqVAc0deDE+do0vm8CawOLX5d5D-BV59vtyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
To: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147406043218a051b997c11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] BIP for Proof of Payment
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:55:14 -0000

--001a1147406043218a051b997c11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

These BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:

120: Proof of Payment
121: Proof of Payment URI scheme

Regards,
Kalle
Den 24 jul 2015 08:27 skrev "Kalle Rosenbaum" <kalle@rosenbaum.se>:

> These BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:
>
> 120: Proof of Payment
> 121: Proof of Payment URI scheme
>
> Regards,
> Kalle
> Den 21 jun 2015 16:39 skrev "Kalle Rosenbaum" <kalle@rosenbaum.se>:
>
>> Hi Greg!
>>
>> After a lot of constructive discussion, feedback and updating, I'm
>> requesting that you please assign these proposals BIP numbers. It's both
>> the "Proof of Payment" proposal and the "Proof of Payment URI scheme"
>> proposal that I'm referring to.
>>
>> The wikimedia source is available here:
>> https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/Proof-of-Payment-BIP and
>> https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/btcpop-scheme-BIP.
>>
>> Is this what you need in order to proceed or is there something else you
>> need from me?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> /Kalle
>>
>> 2015-06-17 11:51 GMT+02:00 Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>:
>>
>>> 2015-06-16 21:48 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>:
>>> > I don't see why existing software could create a 40-byte OP_RETURN but
>>> not
>>> > larger? The limitation comes from a relay policy in full nodes, not a
>>> > limitation is wallet software... and PoPs are not relayed on the
>>> network.
>>>
>>> You are probably right here. The thing is that I don't know how *all*
>>> wallet signing and validating software is written, so I figure it's
>>> better to stick to a "valid" output. Since I don't *need* more data
>>> than 40 bytes, why bother. There's another constraint to this as well:
>>> The other BIP proposal, "Proof of Payment URI scheme", includes a
>>> nonce parameter in the URI. If the nonce is very long, the QR code
>>> will be unnecessarily big. The server should try to detect a brute
>>> force of the 48 bit nonce, or at least delay the pop requests by some
>>> 100 ms or so.
>>>
>>> Do you think this is an actual problem, and why? Is your suggestion to
>>> use a bigger nonce, given the above?
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Regarding sharing, I think you're talking about a different use case.
>>> Say
>>> > you want to pay for 1-week valid entrance to some venue. I thought the
>>> > purpose of the PoP was to be sure that only the person who paid for
>>> it, and
>>> > not anyone else can use it during that week.
>>> >
>>>
>>> That's right. That's one use case. You pay for the 1-week entrance and
>>> then you use your wallet to sign PoPs when you enter the venue.
>>>
>>> > My argument against that is that the original payer can also hand the
>>> > private keys in his wallet to someone else, who would then become able
>>> to
>>> > create PoPs for the service. He does not lose anything by this,
>>> assuming the
>>> > address is not reused.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes, that is possible. It's about the same as giving out a
>>> username/password for a service that you have paid for. In the case of
>>> a concert ticket, it's simple. Just allow one entrance per payment.
>>> But in the example you gave, it's a bit more complicated. You could
>>> for example give all guests a bracelet upon first entry or upon first
>>> exit. Or you can put a stamp on people leaving the venue, and demand
>>> that all re-entries show the stamp, possibly along with a new PoP.
>>> Pretty much as is done already. Different use cases will need
>>> different protection. In this example, the value added by PoP is that
>>> the venue does not have to distribute tickets in advance. This in turn
>>> allows for better privacy for the customer, who don't have to give out
>>> personal information such as an email-address.
>>>
>>> > So, using a token does not change anything, except it can be provided
>>> to the
>>> > payer - instead of relying on creating an implicit identity based on
>>> who
>>> > seems to have held particular private keys in the past.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a difference, but it comes at the cost of security. The
>>> stolen token can be used over and over. In the case of PoP it's only
>>> usable once, and it's only created when it's actually needed,
>>> minimizing the window of opportunity for the thief.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>> > On Jun 16, 2015 9:41 PM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" <kalle@rosenbaum.se> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 2015-06-16 21:25 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>:
>>> >> > You can't avoid sharing the token, and you can't avoid sharing the
>>> >> > private
>>> >> > keys used for signing either. If they are single use, you don't lose
>>> >> > anything by sharing them.
>>> >>
>>> >> Forwarding the PoP request would be a way to avoid sharing keys, as
>>> >> suggested above.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Also you are not creating a real transaction. Why does the OP_RETURN
>>> >> > limitation matter?
>>> >>
>>> >> This was discussed in the beginning of this thread: "The idea is to
>>> >> simplify implementation. Existing software can be used as is to sign
>>> >> and validate PoPs"
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Kalle
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Jun 16, 2015 9:22 PM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thank you for your comments Pieter! Please find my answers below.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 2015-06-16 16:31 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com
>>> >:
>>> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum <
>>> kalle@rosenbaum.se>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> 2015-06-15 12:00 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille <
>>> pieter.wuille@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >> I'm not sure if we will be able to support PoP with CoinJoin.
>>> Maybe
>>> >> >> >> someone with more insight into CoinJoin have some input?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Not really. The problem is that you assume a transaction
>>> corresponds
>>> >> >> > to
>>> >> >> > a
>>> >> >> > single payment. This is true for simple wallet use cases, but not
>>> >> >> > compatible
>>> >> >> > with CoinJoin, or with systems that for example would want to
>>> combine
>>> >> >> > multiple payments in a single transaction.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Yes, you are right. It's not compatible with CoinJoin and the
>>> likes.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > 48 bits seems low to me, but it does indeed solve the problem.
>>> Why
>>> >> >> > not
>>> >> >> > 128
>>> >> >> > or 256 bits?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The nonce is limited because of the OP_RETURN output being limited
>>> to
>>> >> >> 40 bytes of data: 2 bytes version, 32 bytes txid, 6 bytes nonce.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Why does anyone care who paid? This is like walking into a
>>> >> >> >> > coffeshop,
>>> >> >> >> > noticing I don't have money with me, let me friend pay for
>>> me, and
>>> >> >> >> > then
>>> >> >> >> > have
>>> >> >> >> > the shop insist that I can't drink it because I'm not the
>>> buyer.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> If you pay as you use the service (ie pay for coffee upfront),
>>> >> >> >> there's
>>> >> >> >> no need for PoP. Please see the Motivation section. But you are
>>> >> >> >> right
>>> >> >> >> that you must have the wallet(s) that paid at hand when you
>>> issue a
>>> >> >> >> PoP.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Track payments, don't try to assign identities to payers.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Please elaborate, I don't understand what you mean here.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I think that is a mistake. You should not assume that the wallet
>>> who
>>> >> >> > held
>>> >> >> > the coins is the payer/buyer. That's what I said earlier; you're
>>> >> >> > implicitly
>>> >> >> > creating an identity (the one who holds these keys) based on the
>>> >> >> > transaction. This seems fundamentally wrong to me, and not
>>> necessary.
>>> >> >> > The
>>> >> >> > receiver should not care who paid or how, he should care what was
>>> >> >> > payed
>>> >> >> > for.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You are saying that it's a problem that the wallet used to pay,
>>> must
>>> >> >> also be used to issue the PoP? That may very well be a problem in
>>> some
>>> >> >> cases. People using PoP should of course be aware of it's
>>> limitations
>>> >> >> and act accordingly, i.e. don't pay for concert tickets for a
>>> friend
>>> >> >> and expect your friend to be able to enter the arena with her
>>> wallet.
>>> >> >> As Tom Harding noted, it is possible to transfer keys to your
>>> friend's
>>> >> >> wallet, but that might not be desirable if those keys are also used
>>> >> >> for other payments. Also that would weaken the security of an HD
>>> >> >> wallet, since a chain code along with a private key would reveal
>>> all
>>> >> >> keys in that tree. Another solution is that your friend forwards
>>> the
>>> >> >> PoP request to your wallet, through twitter or SMS, and you send
>>> the
>>> >> >> PoP for her. Maybe that forwarding mechanism can be built into
>>> wallets
>>> >> >> and automated so that the wallet automatically suggests to sign the
>>> >> >> PoP for your friend. This is probably something to investigate
>>> >> >> further, but not within the scope of this BIP.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Of course the simplest solution would be to send money to your
>>> friend
>>> >> >> first so that she can pay for the ticket from her own wallet, but
>>> >> >> that's not always feasible.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > The easiest solution to this IMHO would be an extension to the
>>> >> >> > payment
>>> >> >> > protocol that gives you (or your wallet) a token in return for
>>> >> >> > paying,
>>> >> >> > and
>>> >> >> > that knowledge of that token is used to gain access to the
>>> services
>>> >> >> > you
>>> >> >> > provide.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> That token would then be reusable. Someone stealing it would be
>>> able
>>> >> >> to use it as much as she wants. That is what I want to avoid with
>>> PoP.
>>> >> >> The BIP proposal briefly mentions something like this in the
>>> >> >> rationale. I also had a discussion about this with Mike Hearn on
>>> this
>>> >> >> list on Mars 13 that I think covers most pros and cons of the
>>> >> >> different approaches.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> While your suggestion does indeed separate the transaction from the
>>> >> >> proof of payment, it also assumes that the token is held in the
>>> wallet
>>> >> >> that pays. Otherwise you would need to keep it in another safe
>>> place,
>>> >> >> remember it's reusable. Where would that be? How would you transfer
>>> >> >> that token to your friend?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thank you again for your comments. I appreciate it.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Best regards,
>>> >> >> Kalle
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> > Pieter
>>> >> >> >
>>>
>>
>>

--001a1147406043218a051b997c11
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">These BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">120: Proof of Payment=C2=A0<br>
121: Proof of Payment URI scheme</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Regards,=C2=A0<br>
Kalle</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">Den 24 jul 2015 08:27 skrev &quot;Kalle Rosenbau=
m&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kalle@rosenbaum.se">kalle@rosenbaum.se</a>&gt=
;:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Th=
ese BIPs have been assigned 120 and 121:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">120: Proof of Payment <br>
121: Proof of Payment URI scheme</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Regards, <br>
Kalle </p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">Den 21 jun 2015 16:39 skrev &quot;Kalle Rosenbau=
m&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kalle@rosenbaum.se" target=3D"_blank">kalle@r=
osenbaum.se</a>&gt;:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Greg!<br><br>After a lot of constructive discussi=
on, feedback and updating, I&#39;m requesting that you please assign these =
proposals BIP numbers. It&#39;s both the &quot;Proof of Payment&quot; propo=
sal and the &quot;Proof of Payment URI scheme&quot; proposal that I&#39;m r=
eferring to.<br><br>The wikimedia source is available here: <a href=3D"http=
s://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/Proof-of-Payment-BIP" target=3D"_=
blank">https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/Proof-of-Payment-BIP</=
a> and <a href=3D"https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/btcpop-sche=
me-BIP" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/btc=
pop-scheme-BIP</a>.<br><br></div>Is this what you need in order to proceed =
or is there something else you need from me?<br><div><br>Best regards,<br>/=
Kalle<br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2015-06-17 11:51 GMT+02:00 Kalle Rosenbaum <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:kalle@rosenbaum.se" target=3D"_blank">kalle@rosenbaum.se</a>&gt=
;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>2015-06-16 21:48 GMT+02:0=
0 Pieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_b=
lank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
&gt; I don&#39;t see why existing software could create a 40-byte OP_RETURN=
 but not<br>
&gt; larger? The limitation comes from a relay policy in full nodes, not a<=
br>
&gt; limitation is wallet software... and PoPs are not relayed on the netwo=
rk.<br>
<br>
</span>You are probably right here. The thing is that I don&#39;t know how =
*all*<br>
wallet signing and validating software is written, so I figure it&#39;s<br>
better to stick to a &quot;valid&quot; output. Since I don&#39;t *need* mor=
e data<br>
than 40 bytes, why bother. There&#39;s another constraint to this as well:<=
br>
The other BIP proposal, &quot;Proof of Payment URI scheme&quot;, includes a=
<br>
nonce parameter in the URI. If the nonce is very long, the QR code<br>
will be unnecessarily big. The server should try to detect a brute<br>
force of the 48 bit nonce, or at least delay the pop requests by some<br>
100 ms or so.<br>
<br>
Do you think this is an actual problem, and why? Is your suggestion to<br>
use a bigger nonce, given the above?<br>
<span><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Regarding sharing, I think you&#39;re talking about a different use ca=
se. Say<br>
&gt; you want to pay for 1-week valid entrance to some venue. I thought the=
<br>
&gt; purpose of the PoP was to be sure that only the person who paid for it=
, and<br>
&gt; not anyone else can use it during that week.<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</span>That&#39;s right. That&#39;s one use case. You pay for the 1-week en=
trance and<br>
then you use your wallet to sign PoPs when you enter the venue.<br>
<span><br>
&gt; My argument against that is that the original payer can also hand the<=
br>
&gt; private keys in his wallet to someone else, who would then become able=
 to<br>
&gt; create PoPs for the service. He does not lose anything by this, assumi=
ng the<br>
&gt; address is not reused.<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, that is possible. It&#39;s about the same as giving out a<br>
username/password for a service that you have paid for. In the case of<br>
a concert ticket, it&#39;s simple. Just allow one entrance per payment.<br>
But in the example you gave, it&#39;s a bit more complicated. You could<br>
for example give all guests a bracelet upon first entry or upon first<br>
exit. Or you can put a stamp on people leaving the venue, and demand<br>
that all re-entries show the stamp, possibly along with a new PoP.<br>
Pretty much as is done already. Different use cases will need<br>
different protection. In this example, the value added by PoP is that<br>
the venue does not have to distribute tickets in advance. This in turn<br>
allows for better privacy for the customer, who don&#39;t have to give out<=
br>
personal information such as an email-address.<br>
<span><br>
&gt; So, using a token does not change anything, except it can be provided =
to the<br>
&gt; payer - instead of relying on creating an implicit identity based on w=
ho<br>
&gt; seems to have held particular private keys in the past.<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, that&#39;s a difference, but it comes at the cost of security. =
The<br>
stolen token can be used over and over. In the case of PoP it&#39;s only<br=
>
usable once, and it&#39;s only created when it&#39;s actually needed,<br>
minimizing the window of opportunity for the thief.<br>
<div><div><br>
Regards,<br>
Kalle<br>
<br>
&gt; On Jun 16, 2015 9:41 PM, &quot;Kalle Rosenbaum&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:kalle@rosenbaum.se" target=3D"_blank">kalle@rosenbaum.se</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 2015-06-16 21:25 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pie=
ter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br=
>
&gt;&gt; &gt; You can&#39;t avoid sharing the token, and you can&#39;t avoi=
d sharing the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; private<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; keys used for signing either. If they are single use, you don=
&#39;t lose<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; anything by sharing them.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Forwarding the PoP request would be a way to avoid sharing keys, a=
s<br>
&gt;&gt; suggested above.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Also you are not creating a real transaction. Why does the OP=
_RETURN<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; limitation matter?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; This was discussed in the beginning of this thread: &quot;The idea=
 is to<br>
&gt;&gt; simplify implementation. Existing software can be used as is to si=
gn<br>
&gt;&gt; and validate PoPs&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Regards,<br>
&gt;&gt; Kalle<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; On Jun 16, 2015 9:22 PM, &quot;Kalle Rosenbaum&quot; &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:kalle@rosenbaum.se" target=3D"_blank">kalle@rosenbaum.se</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Thank you for your comments Pieter! Please find my answer=
s below.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; 2015-06-16 16:31 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a=
>&gt;:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum &lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:kalle@rosenbaum.se" target=3D"_blank">kalle@rosenbaum.se=
</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; 2015-06-15 12:00 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gma=
il.com</a>&gt;:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I&#39;m not sure if we will be able to support P=
oP with CoinJoin. Maybe<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; someone with more insight into CoinJoin have som=
e input?<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; Not really. The problem is that you assume a transac=
tion corresponds<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; to<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; single payment. This is true for simple wallet use c=
ases, but not<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; compatible<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; with CoinJoin, or with systems that for example woul=
d want to combine<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; multiple payments in a single transaction.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Yes, you are right. It&#39;s not compatible with CoinJoin=
 and the likes.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; 48 bits seems low to me, but it does indeed solve th=
e problem. Why<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; not<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; 128<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; or 256 bits?<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; The nonce is limited because of the OP_RETURN output bein=
g limited to<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; 40 bytes of data: 2 bytes version, 32 bytes txid, 6 bytes=
 nonce.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; Why does anyone care who paid? This is like=
 walking into a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; coffeshop,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; noticing I don&#39;t have money with me, le=
t me friend pay for me, and<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; then<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; have<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; the shop insist that I can&#39;t drink it b=
ecause I&#39;m not the buyer.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; If you pay as you use the service (ie pay for co=
ffee upfront),<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; there&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; no need for PoP. Please see the Motivation secti=
on. But you are<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; right<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; that you must have the wallet(s) that paid at ha=
nd when you issue a<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; PoP.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; Track payments, don&#39;t try to assign ide=
ntities to payers.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Please elaborate, I don&#39;t understand what yo=
u mean here.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; I think that is a mistake. You should not assume tha=
t the wallet who<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; held<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; the coins is the payer/buyer. That&#39;s what I said=
 earlier; you&#39;re<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; implicitly<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; creating an identity (the one who holds these keys) =
based on the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; transaction. This seems fundamentally wrong to me, a=
nd not necessary.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; The<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; receiver should not care who paid or how, he should =
care what was<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; payed<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; for.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; You are saying that it&#39;s a problem that the wallet us=
ed to pay, must<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; also be used to issue the PoP? That may very well be a pr=
oblem in some<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; cases. People using PoP should of course be aware of it&#=
39;s limitations<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; and act accordingly, i.e. don&#39;t pay for concert ticke=
ts for a friend<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; and expect your friend to be able to enter the arena with=
 her wallet.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; As Tom Harding noted, it is possible to transfer keys to =
your friend&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; wallet, but that might not be desirable if those keys are=
 also used<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; for other payments. Also that would weaken the security o=
f an HD<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; wallet, since a chain code along with a private key would=
 reveal all<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; keys in that tree. Another solution is that your friend f=
orwards the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; PoP request to your wallet, through twitter or SMS, and y=
ou send the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; PoP for her. Maybe that forwarding mechanism can be built=
 into wallets<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; and automated so that the wallet automatically suggests t=
o sign the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; PoP for your friend. This is probably something to invest=
igate<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; further, but not within the scope of this BIP.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Of course the simplest solution would be to send money to=
 your friend<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; first so that she can pay for the ticket from her own wal=
let, but<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; that&#39;s not always feasible.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; The easiest solution to this IMHO would be an extens=
ion to the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; payment<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; protocol that gives you (or your wallet) a token in =
return for<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; paying,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; and<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; that knowledge of that token is used to gain access =
to the services<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; you<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; provide.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; That token would then be reusable. Someone stealing it wo=
uld be able<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; to use it as much as she wants. That is what I want to av=
oid with PoP.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; The BIP proposal briefly mentions something like this in =
the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; rationale. I also had a discussion about this with Mike H=
earn on this<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; list on Mars 13 that I think covers most pros and cons of=
 the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; different approaches.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; While your suggestion does indeed separate the transactio=
n from the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; proof of payment, it also assumes that the token is held =
in the wallet<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; that pays. Otherwise you would need to keep it in another=
 safe place,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; remember it&#39;s reusable. Where would that be? How woul=
d you transfer<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; that token to your friend?<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Thank you again for your comments. I appreciate it.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Best regards,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Kalle<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; Pieter<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--001a1147406043218a051b997c11--