From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WfDSe-0007Tk-Pe for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:13:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.54; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WfDSd-0007Qk-Q3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:13:00 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id lf10so678618pab.13 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.65.169 with SMTP id y9mr1737618pas.145.1398798773682; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.185.252.215] (98.sub-70-197-12.myvzw.com. [70.197.12.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ey5sm116699810pab.22.2014.04.29.12.12.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Gavin X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167) In-Reply-To: <535FD6DC.8000002@bitonic.nl> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:12:49 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91F405F1-7F82-42EA-8517-7E2A9444D91A@gmail.com> References: <535FD6DC.8000002@bitonic.nl> To: Jouke Hofman X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WfDSd-0007Qk-Q3 Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing 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, 29 Apr 2014 19:13:00 -0000 Consensus is the spec should be clarified to match current behavior, so it w= on't change. -- Gavin Andresen > On Apr 29, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Jouke Hofman wrote: >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > We have BIP70 already in use (over a hundred paid requests). >=20 > Could you elaborate on why this needs changing? >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 28-04-14 14:39, Gavin Andresen wrote: >> There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment >> requests here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41 >>=20 >> The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. >> The code Mike and I initially wrote does this: >>=20 >> request.set_signature(string("")); >>=20 >> (sets signature to the empty string) >>=20 >> I think that is a mistake; it should be: >>=20 >> request.clear_signature(); >>=20 >> (clears signature field, so it is not serialized at all). >>=20 >> So: if you are implementing, or have implemented, the payment >> protocol, please chime in. I'd like to change the spec and the >> reference implementation NOW, while BIP70 is still a 'Draft'. >>=20 >> Because this type of "hey, I'm implementing your standard and it >> doesn't work the way I think it should" mistake is exactly why BIPs >> take a while before being declared 'Final.' >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ---------------------------------------