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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V7EOk-00066N-RG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:48:14 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7EOj-0007T4-UV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:48:14 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m46so2086466wev.36 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.189.9 with SMTP id ge9mr3578330wic.52.1375922887762; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.82.198 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: <20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:48:07 +1000 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Bitcoin Dev 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: 1V7EOj-0007T4-UV Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72 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: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:48:15 -0000 I've updated the BIP 72 spec at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0072 so the bitcoin address is optional: "If the "request" parameter is provided and backwards compatibility is not required, then the bitcoin address portion of the URI may be omitted (the URI will be of the form: bitcoin:?request=... )." The spec already said what should happen if both request and address/amount/etc were given: "it should ignore the bitcoin address/amount/label/message in the URI and instead fetch a PaymentRequest message and then follow the payment protocol" I think this gives us a smooth, clear upgrade path. -- -- Gavin Andresen