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 587C59BA for ; 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 ; 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 To: Erik Aronesty 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: <201606212044.38931.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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