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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1SJAVB-0007Oj-4Z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:27:25 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1SJAV9-0004RH-Px for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:27:25 +0000
Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 5B0D110400C; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:27:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:27:16 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Message-ID: <20120414212715.GA6131@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CA+8xBpc5CZ9Sx4MwPdeS0-5frnV9B+mJ5OwcPoUVrygTawiJBg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP28Wf6RVOgd85COkE-vLdtCbyQYa0b9QvPFt9W1DzNJag@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpcNd-s9S-zDGO6gGwnd1sFSUikH1fAnCUoG1WiL5kkmVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP33d9zHaf9A9+2BG-YHZEf_pA2SSTNL-_Ht4tT22qV6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpfKpzeq7qSUV5w6JNtTE1-zu58Zg_KCbFAx0JTGeeUG1g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpfKpzeq7qSUV5w6JNtTE1-zu58Zg_KCbFAx0JTGeeUG1g@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is
CUSTOM_MED
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit,
and not from a mailing list
X-Headers-End: 1SJAV9-0004RH-Px
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin TX fill-or-kill deterministic
behavior
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: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:27:25 -0000
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:20:50PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the
> >> merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the
> >> part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned
> >
> > Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design
> > did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi
> > in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way
> > to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup
> > for when the recipient was offline.
> >
> > In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could
> > easily swing back the other way.
>
> But I also have a "gut feeling" that these sorts of payments and
> direct communication should be done via a wholly separate protocol
> than the bitcoin P2P protocol. Doing p2ip as it was done originally,
> inside the bitcoin P2P protocol, was a mistake. Extensible as it is,
> I think a better job -- and faster evolution -- can be done with a
> separate protocol on a separate port.
>
> Some HTTP derivative would probably make life easier for mobile
> payments and firewalled scenarios, and for client->merchant
> communications, for instance.
Have you ever read https://gist.github.com/1237788 ?
--
Pieter
|
