From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TgKkF-0006zV-5X for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 19:34:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TgKkB-0003Tl-J1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 19:34:58 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn14so1873107wib.10 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:34:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.8.133 with SMTP id r5mr5087940wia.7.1354736089487; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:34:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129185330.GE6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:34:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 1TgKkB-0003Tl-J1 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0000 I've had some push-back on the names of the proposed messages-- e.g. "Invoice" in the accounting world means "I've already given you a product or service, here is what you owe, payment terms, what forms of payment are accepted, etc." I think there might also be confusion about why we're defining our own Invoice when there are at least three or four other existing standard for electronic invoices. So unless there is strong objection I'm going to change the names of the messages: Invoice --> PaymentRequest Payment : ok as-is Receipt --> PaymentACK (payment acknowledgement) On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Does it make sense to have this spec not include the details of > bootstrapping? It's not complicated .... BIP 0001 says: "If in doubt, split your BIP into several well-focussed ones." I think it makes sense to keep the URI extension separate from the binary message format. > We should define a simple mechanism for extending the protocol now... > > message Invoice { > extensions 1000 to max; > } Ok. -- -- Gavin Andresen