From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon•org.uk>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:03:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhTYTiW-7btDuNJKqv8nMiZTUzMU2c+N+YcUVf1EejNJA@mail.gmail.com>
But the reality is that in many applications you need to provide a
single URL.
Consider existing point-of-sale systems that display QR codes for the
user to scan. They live within the limitations of existing bitcoin
URLs, but would no doubt benefit from the payments protocol.
It's not realistic for the terminal operator in a retail establishment
to have to select which protocol will be used before generating the QR
code - so the effect of your proposal is to require lowest common
denominator and effectively prevent such systems from using the
payments protocol (at least until it is sufficiently ubiquitous that
they feel happy to simply require its use).
roy
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:54:44PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> I see payment URIs rather as a replacement for bitcoin: URI rather
> than an extension. It solves everything they did in a much cleaner
> way, Given that bitcoin: have gotten some traction, we probably want
> to reuse the moniker, but replace the rest entirely. In other words,
> if a request is specified, nothing else should be.
>
> There is just no useful way to combine them either - payments
> generalize destinations to arbitrary scripts, messages are handled
> inline, amounts are defined inline. And if you want to rely on the
> payment infrastructure to work, you cannot risk people using the
> old-style static address in the URI.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon•org.uk> wrote:
> > Very brief comment on BIP 72:
> >
> > I wonder if there should be some discussion included in the
> > specification as to how the BIP 21 amount, message and label
> > parameters should be processed when the payment protocol is used.
> >
> > Presumably amount should be completely ignored? But is the total
> > amount requestd by the PaymentRequest required to match the amount
> > parameter (when present)? Is the client permitted to complain if they
> > don't?
> >
> > And what about message? Presumably the memo from PaymentDetails
> > should take precedence, but if it's not present, and message is?
> >
> > I think this is an area perhaps more suited to SHOULDs and MAYs rather
> > than MUSTs, but it is probably worthy of mention...
> >
> > roy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
> > It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
> > Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
> > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-07 22:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-31 6:28 Gavin Andresen
2013-07-31 8:45 ` Roy Badami
[not found] ` <CABsx9T3Xvnw2H6awgnT7mr-HzJOqCp_nOVM57BD-B9mY4R43aQ@mail.gmail.com>
2013-07-31 11:33 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-07-31 11:45 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-07-31 23:30 ` E willbefull
2013-07-31 23:38 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-07-31 23:52 ` E willbefull
2013-08-07 20:12 ` Roy Badami
2013-07-31 8:59 ` Mike Hearn
2013-07-31 11:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-08-07 20:31 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-08-07 21:10 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-08-07 21:17 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-07 21:36 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-08-07 21:44 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-07 21:49 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-08-07 21:28 ` Roy Badami
2013-08-07 21:47 ` Alan Reiner
2013-08-14 10:56 ` Jouke Hofman
2013-08-07 21:47 ` Roy Badami
2013-08-07 21:54 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-08-07 22:03 ` Roy Badami [this message]
2013-08-08 0:48 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-08-08 9:13 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-08 14:13 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-08-19 22:15 ` Andreas Petersson
2013-08-19 23:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-08-20 10:05 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-24 13:52 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-24 23:35 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-09-25 9:27 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-25 10:28 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-09-25 11:15 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-25 11:33 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-09-25 11:45 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-25 11:59 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-09-25 14:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-09-25 14:38 ` Mike Hearn
2013-09-25 11:35 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-09-25 16:12 ` The Doctor
2013-09-26 6:37 ` Peter Todd
2013-09-25 14:26 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk \
--to=roy@gnomon$(echo .)org.uk \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox