Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rb9QK-00040M-7B for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:28 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com; helo=mail-ww0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rb9QE-0004F6-HA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:28 +0000 Received: by wgbdt12 with SMTP id dt12so882927wgb.4 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:24:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.106.104 with SMTP id gt8mr4153527wib.6.1323948254646; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:24:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.152.10 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:22:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1323929094.37881.YahooMailClassic@web120902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> From: Christian Decker Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:22:29 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428ee26b50d204b41fb9dc X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (decker.christian[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1Rb9QE-0004F6-HA Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:24:28 -0000 --f46d04428ee26b50d204b41fb9dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > But we don't have to > define how the server will get that address. > Some possibilities: > > -A static address: less anonymity, but some people may not care. Say a > donation address. > -The servers stores the recipient private keys and generates a new one > for each payment. > -The server stores a set of addresses provided by the recipient and it > manages what address it gives in each request (like in the web service > I told you I can't find). > Exactly, I think we should starting separating the minimal protocol that is to be supported by everybody, and the rest can be summed up in a few best practices, no need to standardize the part that to the user is transparent. I was on the same lines as Andy, which is that in order to have require a payment I probably have an order/transaction pending with my vendor or have an account to be filled, so there's a 1-to-1 mapping between the details page and the bitcoin address I have to send to. As a further possibility we could use tags like the OpenID server delegation mechanism. It would allow customers to open the transaction details page, see that everything is ok, then paste the same URL into the bitcoin client, the bitcoin client retrieves the URL, parses the meta tag and knows what to send where. Alternatively the Bitcoin Client sends an Accept header which tells the server to return just the address. As for the format I'd say either a Bitcoin address or a Bitcoin URI [1] which ought to be flexible enough as it includes amount and messages, for the customer to be able to track transactions. Regards, Chris [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme --f46d04428ee26b50d204b41fb9dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
But we don't have to
define how the server will get that address.
Some possibilities:

-A static address: less anonymity, but some people may not care. Say a
donation address.
-The servers stores the recipient private keys and generates a new one
for each payment.
-The server stores a set of addresses provided by the recipient and it
manages what address it gives in each request (like in the web service
I told you I can't find).

Exactly, I think we = should starting separating the minimal protocol that is to be supported by = everybody, and the rest can be summed up in a few best=A0 practices, no nee= d to standardize the part that to the user is transparent. I was on the sam= e lines as Andy, which is that in order to have require a payment I probabl= y have an order/transaction pending with my vendor or have an account to be= filled, so there's a 1-to-1 mapping between the details page and the b= itcoin address I have to send to.

As a further possibility we could use <meta> tags like the OpenID= server delegation mechanism. It would allow customers to open the transact= ion details page, see that everything is ok, then paste the same URL into t= he bitcoin client, the bitcoin client retrieves the URL, parses the meta ta= g and knows what to send where. Alternatively the Bitcoin Client sends an A= ccept header which tells the server to return just the address.

As for the format I'd say either a Bitcoin address or a Bitcoin URI= [1] which ought to be flexible enough as it includes amount and messages, = for the customer to be able to track transactions.

Regards,
Chris

[1] https://en.bitcoi= n.it/wiki/URI_Scheme
--f46d04428ee26b50d204b41fb9dc--