From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum•se>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for Proof of Payment
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 17:13:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjsjtSamZaBd-6tLLv0qjAHvEBgSbh4HBCUV2Z7hpioGQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPswA9zhB4GV=JJ28RRLFNrkVwExUv36zujmuAjwPd6rG6rvzQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2389 bytes --]
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum•se> wrote:
> > What do you gain by making PoPs actually valid transactions? You could
> for
> > example change the signature hashing algorithm (prepend a constant
> string,
> > or add a second hashing step) for signing, rendering the signatures in a
> PoP
> > unusable for actual transaction, while still committing to the same
> actual
> > transaction. That would also remove the need for the OP_RETURN to catch
> > fees.
>
> The idea is to simplify implementation. Existing software can be used
> as is to sign and validate PoPs. But I do agree that it would be a
> cleaner specification if we would make the PoP invalid as a
> transaction. I'm open to changes here. I do like the idea to prepend a
> constant string. But that would require changes in transaction signing
> and validation code, wouldn't it?
>
Yes, of course. An alternative is adding a 21M BTC output at the end, or
bitflipping the txin prevout hashes, or another reversible transformation
on the transaction data that is guaranteed to invalidate it.
I think that the risk of asking people to sign something that is not an
actual transaction, but could be used as one, is very scary.
> > Also, I would call it "proof of transaction intent", as it's a
> commitment to
> > a transaction and proof of its validity, but not a proof that an actual
> > transaction took place, nor a means to prevent it from being double
> spent.
>
>
> Naming is hard. I think a simpler name that explains what its main
> purpose is (prove that you paid for something) is better than a name
> that exactly tries to explain what it is.
"Proof of Payment" indeed does make me think it's something that proves you
paid. But as described, that is not what a PoP does. It proves the ability
to create a particular transaction, and committing to it. There is no
actual payment involved (plus, payment makes me think you're talking about
BIP70 payments, not simple Bitcoin transactions).
> "Proof of transaction
> intent" does not help me understand what this is about. But I would
> like to see more name suggestions. The name does not prevent people
> from using it for other purposes, ie internet over telephone network.
>
I don't understand why something like "Proof of Transaction Intent" would
be incompatible with internet over telephone network either...
--
Pieter
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3237 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-06 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-06 14:35 Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-06 14:47 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-06 15:05 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-06 15:13 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-06-06 16:20 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-06 16:10 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-06 17:00 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-06 21:25 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-06 22:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-15 9:21 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
[not found] ` <CAPg+sBiWykR6RaHhbyYQbL=A5t1TmHgEmS_sC7jj9d3SUTMO9g@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAPswA9zycU0pwZKaHU9J3Tvg=ovLJ8TZ9OH6ebTPONaRaiOE8g@mail.gmail.com>
2015-06-15 10:00 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-15 11:59 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-16 14:31 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-16 19:22 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-16 19:25 ` Pieter Wuille
[not found] ` <CAPswA9yFUAqFyNBFBnnwpT=B9RcdNssdjz-_KWbX5GuLM5Uyxw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-06-16 19:48 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-17 9:51 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-21 14:39 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
[not found] ` <CAPswA9w8QaWV72UuGnitWWeDTr5MPKvzwrD5udmq_FQke-NGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
2015-07-24 6:55 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-07-27 8:14 ` Sriram Karra
[not found] ` <CABm2gDrickFojwmUi7GqAhSW5K0yTa_59VjKrY+wAXEq1MYUoA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-07-26 21:13 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-07-27 9:08 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-27 11:21 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-16 5:26 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-16 12:12 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-16 12:31 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-16 14:05 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-16 16:22 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2015-06-06 15:18 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-06 15:23 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-06 15:32 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-06 16:35 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
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=CAPg+sBjsjtSamZaBd-6tLLv0qjAHvEBgSbh4HBCUV2Z7hpioGQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=kalle@rosenbaum$(echo .)se \
/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