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 F2EEA25A for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:25:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com (mail-yw0-f176.google.com [209.85.161.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B278191 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f176.google.com with SMTP id b72so43936518ywa.3 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:25:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=q94EdLuNX4mhmYGVMSfIwqDFybYZ3mlFut74/X5lsVE=; b=jwBNfE3FnQShZcpi4Eh4mI6+/fU/8LrzJc+ClEPKwrEJ2dCzJQlMH34ovPoUhNdxsd yH885eVMLTqxIt9EVCHK413+DUG6rIyE8ryUs3/067fA3wSEgeKVHHoXi7DSDP0XWHZH JvZ27WfpL8S9m1GhJ/frx2uO3eXu2e8VU36jcPVcNlAajIIs0fRAPxYn0ZFxq6xMdZQA kPp5B+HdYLXLoGY2KVibeudjZ8Sdx/vgSfvszGxF/6xVYkNaZ4pe81dtmzmaoLpOUlq4 Nqgaq26DwDNCCei8p2YF+X+FaqdpplgkXFRs7yXLDjUXaDakyq96DQCuXGo6ubSEwUWV tEbw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=q94EdLuNX4mhmYGVMSfIwqDFybYZ3mlFut74/X5lsVE=; b=JCSSZYXgJEL8bJq0SoH1djq5PfhMr5+7dLijgty7LyEmp/dz4GZtN6RoqWFhwD3OnE bLLNSQVfw+dmkPcsdD0vauUEm+KgFQ5u2uey4EnZNRKzofVONN/vwlXzvdMoLecOVjfS XRbWoQ7CA65GVj1pYNhv3IqMfW+d9fCzOv3Ti/8jGe85Fxmrep7Vg69WAeqBipjEzZJq TJk2Ryf2yQQhn4MGkT5lWsKiEyFkfy5lytA9vnJ+SN7m+4ZXutHXa+/vISVd2Jjj3GsN 8SMtqxql81IIaC/lxPm8lhQ03DJ9nWNs0KK7zIvS5ANMBM4wUfXPKf1Bi9JaedGA19cd vSwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKhDwbfveJiAvqtOXeiacHHYjQNDuKyGuCiU7N4PyJHCGI9hMSjMAdnugThi8S12ceJrB62AbQ4ooqYUg== X-Received: by 10.13.227.196 with SMTP id m187mr15777134ywe.18.1466605505448; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:25:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.37.72.68 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:25:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <576A44F1.9050108@electrum.org> References: <576A44F1.9050108@electrum.org> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:25:03 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vHSNkmbHxVmQJf9-xm-WHV0SqDE Message-ID: To: Thomas Voegtlin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07cfc82d91130535deb475 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:25:45 +0000 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 14:25:07 -0000 --94eb2c07cfc82d91130535deb475 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Only large merchants are able to maintain such an infrastructure; (even > Coinbase recently failed at it, they forgot to update their > certificate). For end users that is completely unpractical. > Payment protocol is for when you buy stuff from purse.io, not really needed for face-to face transfers, end users, IMO. > The same benefit can be achieved without the complexity of BIP70, by > extending the Bitcoin URI scheme. The requestor is authenticated using > DNSSEC, and the payment request is signed using an EC private key. A > domain name and an EC signature are short enough to fit in a Bitcoin URI > and to be shared by QR code or SMS text. > > bitcoin:address?amount=xx&message=yyy&name=john.example.com&sig=zzz > I agree. A TXT record at that name could contain the pubkey. > That extension is sufficient to provide authenticated requests, without > requiring a https server. The signed data can be serialized from the > URI, and DNSSEC verification succeeds without requesting extra data from > the requestor. The only assumption is that the verifier is able to make > DNS requests. > The problem is that there's no way for a merchant to *refuse *a payment without a direct communication with the merchant's server. Verify first / clear later is the rule. Check stock, ensure you can deliver, and clear the payment on the way out the door. Also, as a merchant processing monthly subscriptions, you don't want the first time you hear about a user's payment to be *after *it hits the blockchain. You could add a refund address to deal with it after the fact... stuff a refund address int OP_RETURN somehow? bitcoin:address?amount=xx¤cy=ccc&message=yyy&name=john.example.com &offset=3d&interval=1m&sig=zzz ... But what if the merchant simply goes out of business. No OP_RETURN will help you here. You'll be posting transactions into a dead wallet. You could have some way of posting a "ping" transaction, and then monitoring for a valid response. But this is "spamming the blockchain for communications". No, I think BIP075 is fine. You just need to extend the *PaymentAck *with a single field, instead of just having a memo. next_payment_days : integer The wallet, when it sees this field, re-initiates an invoice request after the selected number of days, after presenting the user with the content of the memo field which will presumably explain the subscription. Wallet vendors can let users "auto approve" vendors as needed. This is, I think, the absolute minimum needed to update BIP0070/0075 for subscriptions. --94eb2c07cfc82d91130535deb475 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
Only large merchants are able to maintain such an infrastructure; (even
Coinbase recently failed at it, they forgot to update their
certificate). For end users that is completely unpractical.

Payment protocol is for when you buy stuff from purse.io, not really needed for face-to face tran= sfers, end users, IMO.
=C2=A0
The same benefit can be achieved without the complexity of BIP70, by
extending the Bitcoin URI scheme. The requestor is authenticated using
DNSSEC, and the payment request is signed using an EC private key. A
domain name and an EC signature are short enough to fit in a Bitcoin URI and to be shared by QR code or SMS text.

=C2=A0bitcoin:address?amount=3Dxx&message=3Dyyy&name=3Djohn.example.c= om&sig=3Dzzz

I agree.=C2=A0 A T= XT record at that name could contain the pubkey.=C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0
That extension is sufficient to provide authenticated requests, without
requiring a https server. The signed data can be serialized from the
URI, and DNSSEC verification succeeds without requesting extra data from the requestor. The only assumption is that the verifier is able to make
DNS requests.

The problem is that there'= s no way for a merchant to refuse a payment without a direct communi= cation with the merchant's server.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Verify first / cle= ar later is the rule.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Check stock, ensure you can deliver, and = clear the payment on the way out the door.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Also, as a m= erchant processing monthly subscriptions, you don't want the first time= you hear about a user's payment to be after it hits the blockch= ain.=C2=A0 You could add a refund address to deal with it after the fact...= stuff a refund address int OP_RETURN somehow?

bitcoin:address?amount=3Dxx&currency=3Dccc&message= =3Dyyy&name=3Djohn.example.com&offset=3D3d&interval=3D1m&= sig=3Dzzz

... But what if the merchant simply goes out of= business.=C2=A0 No OP_RETURN will help you here.=C2=A0=C2=A0 You'll be= posting transactions into a dead wallet.=C2=A0 You could have some way of = posting a "ping" transaction, and then monitoring for a valid res= ponse.=C2=A0=C2=A0 But this is "spamming the blockchain for communicat= ions".

No, I think BIP07= 5 is fine.=C2=A0=C2=A0 You just need to extend the PaymentAck with a= single field, instead of just having a memo.

next_payment_days : integer

The wallet, when it sees this field, r= e-initiates an invoice request after the selected number of days, after pre= senting the user with the content of the memo field which will presumably e= xplain the subscription.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Wallet vendors can let users "aut= o approve" vendors as needed.

= This is, I think, the absolute minimum needed to update BIP0070/0075 for su= bscriptions.






--94eb2c07cfc82d91130535deb475--