From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YQ2AI-0002fR-9q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:11:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YQ2AH-00012a-6S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:11:50 +0000 Received: by wesk11 with SMTP id k11so21793089wes.11 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:11:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.78.4 with SMTP id x4mr25345556wiw.86.1424733103178; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:11:43 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:11:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54EBB10D.8020502@voskuil.org> References: <20150222190839.GA18527@odo.localdomain> <54EA5A1C.2020701@AndySchroder.com> <54EA60D9.8000001@voskuil.org> <54EA66F5.2000302@AndySchroder.com> <54EAD884.8000205@AndySchroder.com> <54EAFC1C.9080502@voskuil.org> <54EBB10D.8020502@voskuil.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:11:42 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9MxufhPem4lrjCYQPDLsf_jk0zc Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Eric Voskuil Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf5e83ca3e050fc986f1 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1YQ2AH-00012a-6S Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Andreas Schildbach Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin at POS using BIP70, NFC and offline payments - implementer feedback 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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:11:50 -0000 --f46d043bdf5e83ca3e050fc986f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I don't see how you propose to treat the bitcoin address as a secp256k1 > public key, or do you mean something else? > Sorry, I skipped a step. I shouldn't make assumptions about what's obvious. The server would provide the public key and the client would convert it to address form then match against the URI it has scanned. If it didn't match, stop at that point. --f46d043bdf5e83ca3e050fc986f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see how you propose to treat the bit= coin address as a secp256k1
public key, or do you mean something else?

<= div>Sorry, I skipped a step. I shouldn't make assumptions about what= 9;s obvious. The server would provide the public key and the client would c= onvert it to address form then match against the URI it has scanned. If it = didn't match, stop at that point.

--f46d043bdf5e83ca3e050fc986f1--