From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:55:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2VLsh0mi=saQ0ZOnjVijUHoqEMxTG3LHcaCb2Ua-f-gQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2UBQXzDPj0zHio+9i0uKNqiPYwL=kYgWKSirXRvckQ4g@mail.gmail.com>
Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the
"concatenation of", why not just make it a signature over the
serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo
code). Otherwise it seems like we'd need more code than really
necessary. We can state explicitly tags must be ordered if you want,
even though all implementations should do that already.
> Thumbnail sketch: escrow service or participant sends around an
> EscrowProposal, gets EscrowProposalACK's with public keys to use, then sends
> all participants an EscrowEstablished message with the final multisig script
> or address.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Not that we should really design it now,
but let's use the term "mediation" rather than "escrow", which has
connotations of depositing funds with the escrow service.
I think it's best to see the existing payment messages as structures
that'll get filled out with more features over time. So rather than
have a separate EscrowProposal message, you would integrate it with
payment requests. Older clients that don't understand mediation would
just ignore the extra data they don't recognize.
message PaymentRequest {
....
// One per mediator acceptable to the seller.
repeated MediationProposal mediation_data = 10;
}
message MediationProposal {
required SignedMediatorIdentity identity = 2;
// Opaque bytes that the mediator can be asked to turn into a human
readable description
// of how disputes will be mediated. The merchant sets this to
describe whatever policy it
// is willing to go along with, so policies may be arbitrarily complicated.
required bytes policy = 3;
}
message SignedMediatorIdentity {
required MediatorIdentity identity = 1;
// If the identity data is signed ...
optional string pki_type = 2;
optional bytes pki_data = 3;
optional bytes pki_signature = 4;
}
message MediatorIdentity {
// Name of the mediator to be displayed to the user.
required string friendly_name = 1;
// PNG image that can be used to represent the mediator to the user.
optional bytes logo = 2;
// Some text shown to the user under the name explaining the
mediators policies, why they should be chosen, etc.
optional string blurb = 3;
// An HTTP URL where a mediator can be reached to do things like
prove ownership of pubkeys, initiate the protocols, etc.
required string contact_url = 4;
}
... etc ....
So the user experience would be that when a payment request is received:
- older clients ignore the mediation_data field and do a direct
payment as normal
- newer clients ask the user to pick a mediator (if they want to) and
if mediation is requested, the PaymentRequest is then discarded and
the next step of the mediation protocol begins.
The old request has to be discarded because the outputs would have
been written on the assumption of no mediation being in use (for
backwards compatibility).
Anyway, though I'm awfully guilty, let's not get off track. Just that
this is how I imagined new payment features being done - as new
extensions to the payment protocol, which would be a living document
amended by BIPs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-06 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-26 22:37 Gavin Andresen
2012-11-26 23:02 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-26 23:13 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-26 23:16 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-26 23:19 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-26 23:27 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-26 23:32 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-26 23:44 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-27 0:16 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-27 0:26 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 0:45 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 1:09 ` Gavin
2012-11-27 8:44 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 0:44 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-26 23:38 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-26 23:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-11-27 0:02 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 0:31 ` Luke-Jr
2012-11-27 0:37 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 2:16 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 2:47 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-27 3:16 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 3:29 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 3:31 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 3:54 ` Rick Wesson
2012-11-27 4:17 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 8:43 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 10:23 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 10:42 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 11:36 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-27 11:46 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 12:03 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 12:39 ` Michael Gronager
2012-11-27 14:05 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-27 14:26 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-28 13:55 ` Walter Stanish
2012-11-27 17:03 ` Andy Parkins
2012-11-27 17:14 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 17:26 ` Andy Parkins
2012-11-27 18:16 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-27 21:39 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-28 10:43 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-28 12:57 ` Peter Todd
2012-11-28 14:09 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-28 8:33 ` Peter Todd
2012-11-28 23:36 ` Roy Badami
2012-11-29 0:30 ` Watson Ladd
2012-11-29 8:16 ` slush
2012-11-29 16:11 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-29 17:07 ` Roy Badami
2012-11-29 17:30 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-11-29 17:31 ` Mike Hearn
2012-11-29 18:53 ` Roy Badami
2012-12-01 19:25 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-03 19:35 ` Mike Koss
2012-12-03 20:59 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-03 21:28 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-03 22:26 ` Roy Badami
2012-12-03 22:34 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-12-03 22:48 ` Roy Badami
2012-12-16 21:15 ` Melvin Carvalho
2012-12-17 2:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-12-17 8:24 ` Melvin Carvalho
2012-12-17 9:19 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-17 9:31 ` Gary Rowe
2012-12-17 11:23 ` Melvin Carvalho
2012-12-17 17:57 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-20 16:53 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-20 17:43 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-20 19:32 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-21 17:05 ` Stephen Pair
2012-12-24 0:38 ` Elden Tyrell
2012-12-04 17:06 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-05 19:34 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-06 6:31 ` Andreas Petersson
2012-12-06 8:53 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-06 16:56 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-06 17:55 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2012-12-06 19:13 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-07 10:45 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-07 11:01 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-07 16:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-12-07 16:27 ` Mike Hearn
2012-12-06 18:13 ` Alan Reiner
[not found] ` <CALf2ePx5jS@mail.gmail.com>
2014-09-17 19:28 ` Vezalke
2012-12-03 21:42 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-12-23 2:33 ` Mark Friedenbach
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='CANEZrP2VLsh0mi=saQ0ZOnjVijUHoqEMxTG3LHcaCb2Ua-f-gQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gavinandresen@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