From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X74Uy-0003AS-OI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:32 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X74Ux-0007Eo-T9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:32 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id va2so4037760obc.40 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.144.161 with SMTP id sn1mr11539696obb.82.1405437506404; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201407151448.57223.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:18:26 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MIFj9Xvr6bDLieNl5IDJAPYYcG4 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39 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: 1X74Ux-0007Eo-T9 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration? 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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:33 -0000 --089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Payment protocol just doesn't well the use cases of, > * an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase > * deposit addresses and deposit situations This seems to be the key point of disagreement here. Wladimir and I think it satisfies your requirement just fine. You disagree. Let's get to the bottom of that. A PaymentRequest with a zero valued pay-to-address output and an expiration time, base58 encoded, would look very much like your extended address form. I don't suggest anyone actually represents PaymentRequest's using base58 but it helps to see the conceptual analogue. There'd be a bit more stuff in there like some varint and wiretype codes but we're talking a handful of bytes. Functionally, it'd be identical. Places like protocols or APIs that require a piece of text and cannot handle a piece of binary data could be retrofitted into the new world by accepting base58 encoded PaymentRequest's. This would be kind of silly because it's fundamentally binary data, but we already do this so it's at least consistently silly :) --089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Payment protocol just doesn't well the use c= ases of,
* an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase
* deposit addresses and deposit situations

= This seems to be the key point of disagreement here. Wladimir and I think i= t satisfies your requirement just fine. You disagree. Let's get to the = bottom of that.

A PaymentRequest with a zero valued pay-to-address outp= ut and an expiration time, base58 encoded, would look very much like your e= xtended address form. I don't suggest anyone actually represents Paymen= tRequest's using base58 but it helps to see the conceptual analogue. Th= ere'd be a bit more stuff in there like some varint and wiretype codes = but we're talking a handful of bytes. Functionally, it'd be identic= al.

Places like protocols or APIs that require a piece of t= ext and cannot handle a piece of binary data could be retrofitted into the = new world by accepting base58 encoded PaymentRequest's. This would be k= ind of silly because it's fundamentally binary data, but we already do = this so it's at least consistently silly :)
--089e0158ac7852eb5804fe3ceb39--