From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WxIQp-0004Yj-IA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:09:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WxIQn-00083Q-Rx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:09:51 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i7so2291227oag.22 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:09:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.144.161 with SMTP id sn1mr2916133obb.82.1403107784201; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:09:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAFDyEXhY-KxM6dN0ngXiiB4ga85tD6e4gW6QVpST5XxJARLicw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKrJrGOBSiY5V59eko6g796j3wh9V9ZLjPbyHeS5=zyX6j3Wdw@mail.gmail.com> <lnhgsk$va6$1@ger.gmane.org> <loom.20140615T111027-736@post.gmane.org> <lnk4ii$ehf$1@ger.gmane.org> <loom.20140618T140509-802@post.gmane.org> <CANEZrP0ekAHNOHha_8ncu_QKVCidBQndw2x0+5rciD92LdOS7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFDyEXhY-KxM6dN0ngXiiB4ga85tD6e4gW6QVpST5XxJARLicw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:09:44 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CSbagLwxStGGnAiUJKMpsjq8u1E Message-ID: <CANEZrP3AKLNZmt0YqNNp3-7uVAkaT4oM4GUfN4bPTqxycpq8zg@mail.gmail.com> From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> To: Daniel Rice <drice@greenmangosystems.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac780f266d04fc1e7d51 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: 1WxIQn-00083Q-Rx Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>, Lawrence Nahum <lawrence@greenaddress.it> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol backwards compatible proto buffer extension X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:09:51 -0000 --089e0158ac780f266d04fc1e7d51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I think that's true if you assume that the instant provider list is based > on a by hand created list of accepted instant providers. That's how VISA > works now and that's why I was asking for an approach where the > trusted_instant_providers list is scalable because that seems very > dangerous. > Supporting it in the protocol is easy. Building such a thing: that's hard. Decentralised automated reputation systems are complex and subtle. I don't feel strongly about whether the field should be "optional" or "repeated", 100% of implementations in the forseeable future would just look at the first item and ignore the rest. But if later someone did crack this problem it would lead to a simple upgrade path. So perhaps you're right and the protobuf should allow multiple signatures. It means a new sub-message to wrap the pki_type, pki_data and signature fields into one, and then making that repeated. Up to Lawrence. --089e0158ac780f266d04fc1e7d51 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo= ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c= cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><font face=3D"arial, sans-= serif">I think that's true if you assume that the instant provider list= is based on a by hand created list of accepted instant providers. That'= ;s how VISA works now and that's why I was asking for an approach where= the trusted_instant_providers list is scalable because that seems very dan= gerous.</font></div> </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Supporting it in the protocol is eas= y. Building such a thing: that's hard. Decentralised automated reputati= on systems are complex and subtle.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>I don'= ;t feel strongly about whether the field should be "optional" or = "repeated", 100% of implementations in the forseeable future woul= d just look at the first item and ignore the rest. But if later someone did= crack this problem it would lead to a simple upgrade path. So perhaps you&= #39;re right and the protobuf should allow multiple signatures. It means a = new sub-message to wrap the pki_type, pki_data and signature fields into on= e, and then making that repeated.</div> <div><br></div><div>Up to Lawrence.</div></div></div></div> --089e0158ac780f266d04fc1e7d51--