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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V4gCF-0007zB-AS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:52:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.172; envelope-from=ewillbefull@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V4gCE-0003lp-JW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:52:47 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id t61so1149303wes.17 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:52:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.22.227 with SMTP id h3mr260115wjf.7.1375314760413; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.162.34 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:52:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130731084538.GL16713@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:52:40 -0600 Message-ID: From: E willbefull To: Gavin Andresen , bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d8815bfba5d04e2d76b5e X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (ewillbefull[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1V4gCE-0003lp-JW 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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:52:47 -0000 --047d7b5d8815bfba5d04e2d76b5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 P2SH addresses support exotic transaction outputs, but not all exotic transactions. This payment protocol can allow for combining multiple outputs. A PaymentRequest for sending money to multiple parties, for example, could not fall back to a single address. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM, E willbefull > wrote: > > I think it's important to expect PaymentRequest-only bitcoin URIs in the > > future. Some types of payments (exotic transactions) may not make sense > to > > have a single fallback address. > > P2SH addresses already support all exotic transactions. > > > Or, a page with a bitcoin URI link may be > > relying on a separate service provider to assemble the transaction. > > Do you mean assemble the PaymentRequest message? Because the payment > transaction will always be created by the customer's wallet software. > > IF PaymentRequests take over the world and we get 100% wallet software > support, then I'd be happy to write another BIP that says that a > bitcoin: URI can be just bitcoin:?request=http... > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > --047d7b5d8815bfba5d04e2d76b5e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
P2SH addresses support exotic transaction outputs, bu= t not all exotic transactions. This payment protocol can allow for combinin= g multiple outputs. A PaymentRequest for sending money to multiple parties,= for example, could not fall back to a single address.


On Wed,= Jul 31, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:3= 0 AM, E willbefull <ewillbefull= @gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's important to expect PaymentRequest-only bitcoin URIs = in the
> future. Some types of payments (exotic transactions) may not make sens= e to
> have a single fallback address.

P2SH addresses already support all exotic transactions.

> Or, a page with a bitcoin URI link may be
> relying on a separate service provider to assemble the transaction.
Do you mean assemble the PaymentRequest message? =A0Because the payme= nt
transaction will always be created by the customer's wallet software.
IF PaymentRequests take over the world and we get 100% wallet software
support, then I'd be happy to write another BIP that says that a
bitcoin: URI can be just bitcoin:?request=3Dhttp...

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--047d7b5d8815bfba5d04e2d76b5e--