1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1TdLmv-000115-K8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:05:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TdLmq-0007ed-7W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:05:25 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn14so3481699wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:05:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.82.10 with SMTP id n10mr5770640wee.126.1354025114094; Tue,
27 Nov 2012 06:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:05:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <98E8A2D6-56D1-4E28-BB63-71E13382B5B8@ceptacle.com>
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
<CACwuEiP7CGeZZGW=mXwrFAAqbbwbrPXTPb8vOEDuO9_96hqBGg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSY8hHiCJYEDv=y48hYRJJtB-R5EBX8JLz6NivBm+Z9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CACwuEiMjf8WYOpfmzHUHMa-sy2VsJHaUNj1cj722Y=P_sosbvw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ1JLtuJ8HQri7++2bodc2ACRrE7Y48oy0HkPR8d400MooHaqA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACwuEiMgcv09U2P9dD58x-oMXMSg==fPYo0yRLsqzyuax96Eqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ1JLttTPi9XNwCGyvbvx8TXqbLyk0KxFRHxv_8UB+tEQrKvvA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACwuEiNZobcpR4g=1AH=JReZFzHmH=6exNGTaPBBjm+q5eR9vg@mail.gmail.com>
<895A1D97-68B4-4A2F-B4A1-34814B9BA8AC@ceptacle.com>
<CANEZrP1u0-JNf1nd4NsZhrqC=M0Yx3J6cTYA=bzKm8CTucd85w@mail.gmail.com>
<626D0E73-1111-4380-AABE-6C8C65F2FFCC@ceptacle.com>
<CANEZrP03kSG5BYMykkW+UJiy65qPOBC7RuvKg85eLEmE3tnukQ@mail.gmail.com>
<98E8A2D6-56D1-4E28-BB63-71E13382B5B8@ceptacle.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:05:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3BjnwufFKeYkHEoHxgJjoHc2+WCfimGBmmunS4ZwjzsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1TdLmq-0007ed-7W
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
Invoices/Payments/Receipts
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:05:25 -0000
RE: SignedReceipt: I agree it is superfluous. I'll remove it from the spec.
RE: "it is controversial use of the host key to use it for digital
signing of documents" : The idea of embedding a x509 certificate
chain comes from the IETF's JSON Object Signing and Encryption working
group "JWS" specification, so I can't be TOO controversial.
RE: the ifex-project and other electronic invoicing standards: Thanks
for the pointers, Walter! I'm all for adopting the best ideas that
have come before, as long as we end up with something useful and small
enough to convince ourselves it is as secure as we can make it. I
looked at the ifex spec, and quickly got lost. It would help me if you
could write up what our motivating use cases would look like if
implemented on top of ifex.
RE: jgarzik's suggestion to allow txids in the Payment: that worries
me, because it is trivial to create several different variations of
the same transaction (same inputs to same outputs) with different
txids (re-signing inputs uses a different signature nonce, which
changes the signature/txid, for example).
RE: using self-signed certificates: as Mike said, I assume Bitcoin
clients will have some way of managing root certificates, so experts
could add trusted self-signed certs.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
