From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 184F84D3 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:23 +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 935B621A for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:22 +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 445901080053; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150810:jrn@jrn.me.uk::E9VyfNScKFYgZj3p:hrom X-Hashcash: 1:25:150810:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::L+JqUzLkcQwEMQNx:atIAP From: Luke Dashjr To: Ross Nicoll Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:40:58 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <55C75FC8.6070807@jrn.me.uk> <201508092346.20301.luke@dashjr.org> <55C8EE2A.3030309@jrn.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <55C8EE2A.3030309@jrn.me.uk> 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="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201508101841.00173.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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 Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative chain support for payment protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:41:23 -0000 On Monday, August 10, 2015 6:32:10 PM Ross Nicoll wrote: > BTW, did you mean to take this off-list? No, accidental. I'll re-CC it on this email. > On 10/08/2015 00:46, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Sunday, August 09, 2015 2:12:24 PM Ross Nicoll via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> BIP 70 currently lists two networks, main and test (inferred as > >> testnet3) for payment protocol requests. This means that different > >> testnets cannot be supported trivially, and the protocol cannot be used > >> for alternative coins (or, lacks context to indicate which coin the > >> request applies to, which is particularly dangerous in cases where coins > >> share address prefixes). > > > > I don't see how address prefixes are relevant - the payment protocol > > doesn't use addresses at all... > > Good point, trying to hard to preempt questions. > > >> I propose adding a new optional "genesis" field as a 16 byte sequence > >> containing the SHA-256 hash of the genesis block of the network the > >> request belongs to, uniquely identifying chains without any requirement > >> for a central registry. > > > > Genesis blocks are not necessarily unique. For example, Litecoin and > > Feathercoin share the same one. > > Had missed that, and there's no easy alternatives. BIP 44 chain IDs > don't identify different testnets, and do not cover regtest at all. Regtest isn't really a network at all, just a testing mode of Bitcoin Core... > Most recent block hash could be used and also provides fork > detection, but in doing so advertises if a merchant is on the wrong > fork. Will think about it. Is that a bad thing? > > I'd appreciate initial feedback on the idea, and if there's no major > > objections I'll raise this as a BIP. > > I don't see how this is related to improving Bitcoin... > > Well, mostly I'm trying not to avoid the situation where any accidental > mixing of files is dangerous (funds can easily be sent on the wrong > blockchain), nor with multiple standards (which is where we are at the > moment). It improves things in avoiding future problems, rather than in > the immediate term. Sorry, I meant to stress that BIPs are for *Bitcoin* improvements specifically. Things which only improve altcoins, while a perfectly fine thing to standardise, are outside the scope of what belongs in a BIP. Perhaps, however, this could be made to kill 2 birds with one stone, by ensuring it addresses the need for payments made of bitcoins on a sidechain? For this, a merchant who wants a sidechain payment would presumably be able to provide a script from the main chain already, but an extension allowing payment directly on the sidechain (at the customer's choice) avoids the need to round-trip it... Luke