Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VOT2X-0000BX-4f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VOT2V-0004NV-HN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:32 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id d7so1703560bkh.40 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:52:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.205.68.137 with SMTP id xy9mr1798221bkb.28.1380030745027; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:52:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <521298F0.20108@petersson.at> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:52:24 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GYNYYtwyoYTCiX5RQSoHnibF-CA Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041556305669df04e721725b X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VOT2V-0004NV-HN Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:33 -0000 --f46d041556305669df04e721725b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 BTW, on the "make qrcodes more scannable" front -- is it too late to change BIP 72 so the new param is just "r" instead of "request"? Every byte helps when it comes to qrcodes ... On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > I think the confidence of the tx is not really the users concern anyway. > They wrote it so they know it's valid. If the merchant disagrees for some > reason then the user can find out, out of band when the goods/services are > not delivered. > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson wrote: >> >>> I was just reviewing the integration work to integrate the Payment >>> Protocol into our products. Is there any notion of a standardized >>> invoice serialisation? If i pay for two Burgers and one Club Mate, how >>> would my Bitcoin Wallet be able to know that? >> >> >> No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoicing that >> include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message could >> easily encapsulate one of them in an 'invoice' field extension. Or we could >> reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I'd rather use an existing >> standard (or maybe a subset of an existing standard). >> >> I didn't want to wade into that swamp for the 1.0 version of the payment >> protocol. >> >> >>> Right now, i would simply >>> put that into "memo" and come up with my own serialisation mechanism. >>> >> >> "Two Burgers, one Club Mate" seems pretty user-friendly. >> >> Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX >>> (unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK? >>> >> >> No, because the Payment->PaymentACK communication round-trip is done in >> one, non-persistent http request-response round-trip. >> >> I don't think we want to allow merchants to push messages to the wallet >> (wouldn't take long for merchants to use the opportunity to push annoying >> advertising at me, I think), and I don't think we want wallets to poll the >> merchant. Although maybe a payment protocol version 2.0 feature could be a >> PaymentACK extension that says "ask me how the transaction is going at THIS >> URL in THIS many minutes." >> >> -- >> -- >> Gavin Andresen >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and >> AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights, >> analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. >> Visit us today! >> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > --f46d041556305669df04e721725b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BTW, on the "make qrcodes more scannable" front = -- is it too late to change BIP 72 so the new param is just "r" i= nstead of "request"? Every byte helps when it comes to qrcodes ..= .


On Tue, Aug 2= 0, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
I think the confidence of the tx is not really the users c= oncern anyway. They wrote it so they know it's valid. If the merchant d= isagrees for some reason then the user can find out, out of band when the g= oods/services are not delivered.


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandr= esen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Andreas Petersson <andr= eas@petersson.at> wrote:
I was just reviewing the integration work to= integrate the Payment
Protocol into our products. Is there any notion of a standardized
invoice serialisation? If i pay for two Burgers and one Club Mate, how
would my Bitcoin Wallet be able to know that?

No. There are XML-based (shudder) standards for electronic invoici= ng that include all sorts of bells and whistles; the PaymentDetails message= could easily encapsulate one of them in an 'invoice' field extensi= on. Or we could reinvent the wheel and come up with our own, but I'd ra= ther use an existing standard (or maybe a subset of an existing standard).<= /div>

I didn't want to wade into that swamp for the 1.0 v= ersion of the payment protocol.
=C2=A0
Right now, i would simply
put that into "memo" and come up with my own serialisation mechan= ism.

"Two Burgers, one Club = Mate" seems pretty user-friendly.=C2=A0

Second, is there a way to communicate acceptance levels of TX
(unconfirmed, 1 conf, 6 conf) maybe using several PaymentACK?

No, because the Payment->PaymentACK communi= cation round-trip is done in one, non-persistent http request-response roun= d-trip.

I don't think we want to allow merchants to p= ush messages to the wallet (wouldn't take long for merchants to use the= opportunity to push annoying advertising at me, I think), and I don't = think we want wallets to poll the merchant. Although maybe a payment protoc= ol version 2.0 feature could be a PaymentACK extension that says "ask = me how the transaction is going at THIS URL in THIS many minutes."

--
--
Gavin Andresen

-----------------------------------------= -------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam= pad/clk?id=3D48897511&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
___________________= ____________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment



--f46d041556305669df04e721725b--