From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 1RsBCu-0004HS-6B for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:45:00 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.129] helo=cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RsBCo-0008Ta-IJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:45:00 +0000 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: sipa@ulyssis.org X-Spam-Status: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-48.798, required 5, autolearn=disabled, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 0.00, FREEMAIL_FROM 0.00, KUL_SMTPS -50.00, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 1.20) X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 0C4171380B8.A9BBC X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from smtps01.kuleuven.be (smtpshost01.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.74]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4171380B8; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.ulyssis.org (mail.ulyssis.student.kuleuven.be [193.190.253.235]) by smtps01.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD47E31E70A; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from wop.ulyssis.org (wop.intern.ulyssis.org [192.168.0.182]) by smtp.ulyssis.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE94010052; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:46:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by wop.ulyssis.org (Postfix, from userid 615) id CE95987C1AB; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:44 +0100 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Pieter Wuille To: Gary Rowe Message-ID: <20120131104443.GB19161@ulyssis.org> References: <1327881329.49770.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RsBCo-0008Ta-IJ Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20) 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, 31 Jan 2012 10:45:00 -0000 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:01:00AM +0000, Gary Rowe wrote: > Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represents > Bitcoin's pulse, there is no guarantee that a block will be discovered at > any particular moment. From a merchant perspective the main point of the > expires field is to limit risk against currency movement (immediate cash > out) or inventory movement (time limited offer). I have difficulty seeing a > good use case that would need a block. People have been co-ordinating > events based on a UTC timestamp for decades and I think we should stick > with it. For merchant purposes, I believe URI's containing a static pubkeyhash-address are only a temporary solution until more elaborate solutions that deal with all concerns appear (tagging transactions, feedback to the merchant, making the receiver responsible for inclusion, certificates that a payment was accepted, authentication, ...). I believe static addresses are too limited for this purpose, and we shouldn't be trying to extend them with too many features. There have been discussions about more dynamic approaches (such as HTTP communication to negotiate an address) here, and I've written my own proposal as well (https://gist.github.com/1237788). The details are not really relevant at this time, but these dynamic approaches seem a much better way of dealing with what you're trying to add to the bitcoin URI system now. My 2 cents: keep bitcoin URI's simple for now. -- Pieter