Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:12:32 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: E willbefull <ewillbefull@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130807201231.GM16713@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130731084538.GL16713@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CABsx9T3Xvnw2H6awgnT7mr-HzJOqCp_nOVM57BD-B9mY4R43aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T14Dfh8SEe6wsCJjE=S8hTcfDrAUNMBCjtkvM+UH-bAYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGRKETunznLbBZO1gnS7WZH5sn=TnmKPS4Gz_Nrtocoe5devbw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGRKETunznLbBZO1gnS7WZH5sn=TnmKPS4Gz_Nrtocoe5devbw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72
Precedence: list

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:30:46PM -0600, E willbefull wrote:
> I think it's important to expect PaymentRequest-only bitcoin URIs in the
> future. Some types of payments (exotic transactions) may not make sense to
> have a single fallback address. Or, a page with a bitcoin URI link may be
> relying on a separate service provider to assemble the transaction.

Also:

* There may be a desire to minimize the URL length when used in a QR code

* Some applications might specifically require some of the features of
the payment protocol - e.g. it may be a requirement that a print-media
QR code cannot be used after a cut-off date, or a vendor may have a
specific requirement not to accept payments without a refund address

There are pros and cons, but it's not clear to me that the benefits of
enforced backward compatibility outweigh the benefits of allowing
application designers to innovate as they see fit.

roy