Re: [Bitcoin-development] Extension for BIP-0070 to support recurring payments

[Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9872 bytes --]

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that makes sense, and you did actually
explain this before, I just didn't connect the dots :)

The accompanying BIP should explain all this, so the rationale for the
design and how you use it is made clear to developers.

I've CCd Jeff and Stephen on this thread, so they can go review it and
weigh in with any comments. They may want to go back to customers who
requested this feature and ask if it'd satisfy their needs.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Stephane Brossier
<stephane@kill-bill.org>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Hi Mike, Jeremy, Drak,Before going through your questions, I would like
> to bring some clarity on a few key elements in that protocol. There are
> really two aspects to it: 1. The contract negotiation; when the user first
> subscribes, it is prompted by a contract that will define the payment
> bounds associated with that subscription. 2. Once accepted, the wallet is
> in charge and the user does not have to interact anymore -- this is the
> point of the recurring payment protocol. The wallet will poll the merchant
> and issue payments as they are requested by the merchant as long as they
> stay within the bounds of what was specified by the contract (and accepted
> by the customer).I think it would help to explain how we ended up with the
> type of contract we introduced in that protocol. In an ideal world and in a
> NON recurring scheme, the contract should simply be the exact amount to be
> paid. In our case the exact amount may not be completely known in advance
> -- for e.g taxes, shipping, pro-rations, … and so we decided to introduce
> first a max amount per payment, and also a max amount per period. It is up
> to the merchant to decide whether to specify none, any or both bounds (max
> amount per payment and max amount per period). By specifying both, the
> contract is tighter and the client would feel safer to accept it. In the
> extreme case, by specifying none, the client would be presented with a
> contract to pay whatever is requested -- probably not a good option in the
> Bitcoin world unless there is a high sense of trust with the merchant.
>   From reading your comments, it appears we have not been clear on how that
> frequency (PaymentFrequencyType) is being used. Its sole purpose is to
> define the max amount per period in the contract. The frequency of the
> payment is implicitly dictated by the merchant but not specified in the
> protocol by design: the wallet has to poll with a fine granularity (ideally
> each day when it is up) to understand if there is something pending. In the
> same way, a specified amount was not enough in the contract, we feel it
> would be restrictive to specify in advance when payments are due. There are
> a lot of complex scenarios in the billing space, and having the wallet poll
> the merchant to inquire for pending payments is the most flexible option
> and the contract is there to ensure the client will not be abused. To give
> a concrete example, imagine a data plan where you pay a base recurring
> price of $70 per month, but you are charged $10 per GB of data used beyond
> your included limit. If you exceed your limit on the 15th and the 23rd of a
> given month, two extra payment attempts will be requested by the merchant,
> that you couldn’t predict (this scenario is often referred to as usage
> billing with Prepay Credits and Top-up, where the customer pays in advance
> for blocks of N units, and once they are consumed another N are purchased).*
>
>
> *See answers in your questions inlined below:*
>
>
> I have the following comments:
>
>    1. There's no need to serialize RecurringPaymentDetails as bytes here.
>    It's done that way outside of PaymentDetails in order to support digital
>    signatures over protobufs that may have extensions the wallet app isn't
>    aware of, but it's a pain and inside PaymentDetails (and therefore for most
>    extensions) it shouldn't be necessary. So you can just use "optional
>    RecurringPamentDetails recurring_payments = 8;"
>
>
>
> OK, we'll fix it.
>
>
>
>    1. There's only 4 possibilities here for recurrences. That seems
>    rather restrictive. Is the cost of being more expressive really so high?
>    Why not allow more flexible specification of periods?
>
>
>    1. If there's no payment_frequency_type field then what happens? A
>    quirk of protobufs to be aware of is that making an enum field "required"
>    can hurt backwards compatibility. Because it will be expressed using a
>    languages underlying enum type, if there's a new enum member added later
>    old software that attempts to deserialize this will throw exceptions
>    because the new "unknown" member would be unrepresentable in the old model.
>    Making the field optional avoids this problem (it will be treated as
>    missing instead) but means software needs to be written to know what to do
>    when it can't read the enum value / sees enum values from the future.
>
>
>
> I hope the explanation above answers the questions.
>
>
>    1. I assume the amounts are specified in terms of satoshi, and
>    timestamps are UNIX time, but better to make that explicit.
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>    1. Seems there's an implicit value constraint that max_payment_amount
>    <= max_payment_per_period. What happens if that constraint is violated?
>    Best to document that.
>
>
>
> As explained above, contract would define none, 1 or both conditions.
>  First the merchant should not return such 'conditions' but if it does the
> client should not accept the contract. If the client decides to accept it
> anyway, then the wallet just verifies both conditions are met separately
> regardless of whether there is such violation and if so, makes the payment.
>
>
>    1. What's the "merchant ID" namespace thing about? What's it for? What
>    happens if I set my competitors merchant ID there?
>
>
> I agree, we can easily get rid of it.
>
>
>    1. What's the "subscription ID"? Is this stuff not
>    duplicative/redundant with the existing merchant_data field?
>
>
> In an ideal world the merchant should return unique subscriptionId (UUID
> for instance). That subscriptionId is used in the code to identify the
> contracts associated with the subscription. The merchant_data if i
> understand correctly the payment protocol is opaque from the client point
> of view, so it cannot be used by the client for that purpose.
>
>
>    1. In what situations would you have >1 contract per payment request?
>    I'm not sure I understand why it's repeated. Presumably if there are zero
>    contracts included the data should be ignored, or an error thrown and the
>    entire payment request rejected? Which should it be?
>
>
>
>
> There are many example where that could  happen; for instance if you
> subscribe to a service,  then later decide to downgrade to a lower product.
> The merchant may decide to only let you downgrade at the end of your paid
> period-- to avoid generating extra credit-- and in that situation you end
> up with two contracts: One for the current product you are in and one for
> the future product you will end up on when the downgrade becomes effective.
>
>
>
>    1. It's unclear to me given such a contract when the payment should
>    actually occur. For instance if it's "monthly" then what day in the month
>    would the payment occur?
>
>
>
> As outlined above in the introduction, the protocol is designed in such a
> way that the wallet does not have to know what is the exact date when
> payment should occur, but instead polls the merchant for pending payments.
> There are many situations when specifying an exact payment date is not an
> option so that flexibility is essential. A simple example would be for a
> customer who started subscribing on the 31th of a month. Since there will
> be months with 28/29/30 days, the payment date would change depending on
> the month.
>
>
>
>
>
>    1. You'll notice I moved the comments to be above the field
>    definitions. I know the current proto isn't done that way, but let's change
>    it - long comments are good and putting them above the field definitions
>    encourages people to write enough detail without being put off by line
>    length constraints
>
>
>
> Fine.
>
>
> I think the next step would be to talk to BitPay/get Jeff+Stephen involved
> because I know they have customers that really want recurring payments, and
> those guys will have a clearer idea of customer requirements than we do. I
> feel uncomfortable with designing or reviewing in a vacuum without some
> actual people who would use it chiming in, as I don't really know much
> about the underlying business processes.
>
>
>
> We are totally open to receive feedbacks from them.. How do we bring them
> in the discussion?
>
>
> I have some other comments about the bitcoinj implementation specifically
> - for instance, we don't have a "wallet directory" concept: everything goes
> into the wallet file. So we'll need to think about how to structure the
> code to allow that. Also, just using a background polling thread is likely
> not flexible enough, as on some platforms you can't stay running all the
> time (e.g. Android) without upsetting people, but the underlying OS can
> wake you up at the right times, so wallet apps should have an ability to
> control wakeup tasks. But we can discuss that over on the bitcoinj list
> specifically. Let's keep this thread for the general protocol design.
>
>
> Ok that makes sense.
>
>
> BIP 70 is indeed implemented in Bitcoin Core on the C++ side, so that
> isn't a concern. It could be done there too.
>
>
> Great to know.
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14285 bytes --]