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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587C59BA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:37:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC491CF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:37:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E24A38A17C3;
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:36:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160622:erik@q32.com::0I/WEVz=ZVYmg0x6:alS8k
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160622:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::yi/dF4fXvRFs0N4L:PWJ2
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:36:53 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.16; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201606212044.38931.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAJowKg+9kfOwvSH3GENr-=RYnctGHEw_7o-UmFqjAMJaaZ8AtA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+9kfOwvSH3GENr-=RYnctGHEw_7o-UmFqjAMJaaZ8AtA@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201606220036.54258.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:37:10 -0000
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:42:39 PM Erik Aronesty wrote:
> > What do you mean by "replacement addresses" and "UI confirms" here?
>
> "Replacement addresses" would take the place of BIP 32/47 support, if
> someone thought maybe that was too difficult to deal with. So each time i
> paid Alice, Alice could generate a new payment address for the next monthly
> payment. If you support BIP 32 pub seed, then there's no need for this.
I suppose it makes sense that since every payment requires communication with
the recipient, that the recipient could give you a new scriptPubKey each time.
No need to save [potentially compromised] payment info in advance?
> I don't know any wallets that support a BIP 32 pub seed (and then what,
> some random number generator?) as a destination address yet.
The point, as I see it, of payment protocol(s) is to deprecate addresses.
ie, this new protocol *could be* the BIP 32 pub seed destination address. ;)
> > Disagree with hard-coding intervals, or mandating specific policies from
> > the service providers.
>
> I think mandating is a harsh word here, but i I'm a strong believer in
> providing strict guidelines that if people break, others can call them
> on. Giving someone a 12.3 +/- 5 day interval for payments using this
> protocol would suck. You should use payment channels for that stuff.
> The idea is a lightweight protocol for getting monthly subscriptions
> working.
Maybe just a field specifying how far in advance payments should be sent,
then?
Luke
|
