From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
To: "Ryan X. Charles" <ryan@bitpay•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70 proposed changes
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:15:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2Sz+_OubqUpA1LsZxn5sUCN6A2M-BKjrW-sdzh9NK4fg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5303B110.70603@bitpay.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5679 bytes --]
Fantastic feedback, thanks Ryan and Andreas!
Please don't let me being busy get in the way of progress, so submit pull
requests to the BIP (the UTC timezone issue seems obvious and
non-controversial) or write up draft specs for extensions.
RE: wallets checking the status of payment: excellent idea. A URL that can
be polled to check payment processing status sounds like the right thing to
do.
That feels very similar to the proposal for recurring payments; I think
they would be separate mechanisms, but maybe their specs could share some
of the same concepts / field names....
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Ryan X. Charles <ryan@bitpay•com> wrote:
> Here are my complementary thoughts after working on the payment protocol
> on the merchant side at BitPay.
>
> The most important missing piece of the payment protocol is that is has
> no concept of the status of a payment after it has been made. What if
> the payment is too little? Too much? What if it is never confirmed? What
> if it is confirmed, but very late? These are regular occurrences at
> BitPay (although hopefully they will be a lot fewer after the payment
> protocol is widely adopted).
>
> One way to handle this would be to add another type of message, say with
> content-type bitcoin-paymentstatus, that can return the merchant's view
> of the status of the transaction(s). Are the transactions under or
> overpaid? Are they confirmed? How many confirmations? Is the payment
> "accepted" even if the transactions aren't confirmed?
>
> I think it would be great if wallets could check the status of a
> payment, and if anything goes wrong, request a refund, all within the
> payment protocol.
>
> The payment protocol is also the perfect opportunity to implement merge
> avoidance to increase customer and merchant privacy. The merchant can
> simply deliver multiple outputs in the payment details, say 10 or so,
> and the customer can spend multiple outputs to those outputs in separate
> transactions. It would be great if BitPay could work with wallet authors
> to make merge avoidance a reality in the near-term.
>
> Merge avoidance would increase the need to have a bitcoin-paymentstatus
> message since it's possible that some, but not all, of the transactions
> would confirm, and so knowing the status of payment would be a complex
> question that should be handled automatically by the software.
>
> On an unrelated note, X.509 is a terrible standard that should be
> abandoned as quickly as possible. BitPay is working on a new standard
> based on bitcoin-like addresses for authentication. It would be great if
> we could work with the community to establish a complete, decentralized
> authentication protocol. The sooner we can evolve beyond X.509 the better.
>
> One more thing. The new bitcoin URI in BIP 72 is extremely long and
> makes for very dense QR codes. BitPay has proposed a new standard, BIP
> 73, for shorter URIs and less dense QR codes. We hope wallet authors
> will implement this better standard.
>
> My response to Andreas' thoughts:
>
> On 2/18/14, 12:31 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> > I'm starting a thread on proposed changes on BIP70 based on my
> > experience in implementing the payment protocol in Bitcoin Wallet:
> >
> > - certificate chain in pki_data: I think it should be required that is
> > most contain the first certificate PLUS all intermediate certificates
> > (if any), but NOT the root certificate. Reason: We want to be able to
> > verify offline.
>
> So long as the root certificate remains an optional addition, this seems
> like a good idea. My experience with tls in node is that it is required
> for the root certificate to be present, so we don't want to require that
> the root certificate be absent, since that would make it painful to make
> code that is interoperable between the two. IIRC setting
> rejectUnauthorized=true will reject connections that do not deliver the
> root certificate, so allowing the root certificate to be present would
> be compatible with this and presumably other tls code.
>
> Would be great if someone with more experience with tls weighed in on
> whether the root certificate can/should be present.
>
> >
> > - definition of timezone: Its not clear if times (e.g. expires) are in
> > UTC or local. I suggest to require UTC. If if we can't agree on this,
> > there should be a sentence about timezones in the spec.
>
> The world needs to abandon timezones altogether for everything and only
> use UTC. So, agreed. Require UTC.
>
> >
> > (probably more to be added...)
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
> > Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
> > Read the Whitepaper.
> >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
>
> --
> Ryan X. Charles
> Software Engineer, BitPay
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
> Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
> Read the Whitepaper.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7210 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-18 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 17:31 Andreas Schildbach
2014-02-18 19:14 ` Ryan X. Charles
2014-02-18 20:15 ` Gavin Andresen [this message]
2014-02-18 21:40 ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-02-19 14:10 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-02-19 16:44 ` Mike Hearn
2014-05-06 2:35 ` Odinn Cyberguerrilla
2014-05-06 8:22 ` Alon Muroch
2014-02-18 21:47 ` Peter Todd
2014-02-18 23:41 ` Bernd Jendrissek
2014-02-18 22:02 ` Derber
2014-02-21 15:34 ` Mike Hearn
2014-03-05 10:18 ` Mike Hearn
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=CABsx9T2Sz+_OubqUpA1LsZxn5sUCN6A2M-BKjrW-sdzh9NK4fg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=ryan@bitpay$(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