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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TgXDS-0004sW-6R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:53:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TgXDR-0006V9-8g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:53:58 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id vb8so6248134obc.34 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:53:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.171.141 with SMTP id au13mr383078oec.124.1354784031947; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:53:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.128.139 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.128.139 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:53:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50C03BDA.6010600@petersson.at> References: <20121128233619.GA6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129170713.GD6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20121129185330.GE6368@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <50C03BDA.6010600@petersson.at> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:53:51 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0z0xHR3zScsgAlQUk3nggVLJY_k Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Andreas Petersson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55238c6f8bc3304d02b3ccf 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: 1TgXDR-0006V9-8g 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: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:53:58 -0000 --bcaec55238c6f8bc3304d02b3ccf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Escrow/multisig is complicated enough to wait for another day. But certainly having a payment protocol is an important step towards it On 6 Dec 2012 07:32, "Andreas Petersson" wrote: > During/before the Payment Request there should be a method to exchange > the public keys to be able to generate a common multisig address. > Should this be handled in a different protocol, or be included in this > spec? > Or is there a method for the customer to verify that the specified BIP16 > Output contains his address and the one from an escrow service? > > -- > Andreas > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --bcaec55238c6f8bc3304d02b3ccf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Escrow/multisig is complicated enough to wait for another da= y. But certainly having a payment protocol is an important step towards it<= /p>

On 6 Dec 2012 07:32, "Andreas Petersson&quo= t; <andreas@petersson.at>= wrote:
During/before the Payment Request there should be a method to exchange
the public keys to be able to generate a common multisig address.
Should this be handled in a different protocol, or be included in this
spec?
Or is there a method for the customer to verify that the specified BIP16 Output contains his address and the one from an escrow service?

--
Andreas

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial
Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support
Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers
http://p= .sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment
--bcaec55238c6f8bc3304d02b3ccf--