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 ) id 1V7Qxw-00085X-7m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:13:24 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7Qxv-0004u4-A6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:13:24 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id f4so1889665iea.37 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 07:13:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.66.200 with SMTP id q8mr2202913ici.25.1375971198011; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 07:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130807214757.GA45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20130807220358.GB45156@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:13:17 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1V7Qxv-0004u4-A6 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72 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, 08 Aug 2013 14:13:24 -0000 On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > I've updated the BIP 72 spec at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0072 so > the bitcoin address is optional: > > "If the "request" parameter is provided and backwards compatibility is > not required, then the bitcoin address portion of the URI may be > omitted (the URI will be of the form: bitcoin:?request=... )." Sounds good. I'd still like to see some effort to avoid losing metadata and reducing the responsibilities of the sender. I see there's an implementation difficulty in avoiding to broadcast a transaction, but for example, if a payment_uri is specified, and it cannot be contacted (at all), the transaction should fail. As soon as you manage to connect, and have at least attempted to submit the transaction, the merchant may have received it, and you want to mark the coins spent, so store it after that point. But without such protection we'll likely see a unnecessary payments happening without metadata, when the payment server cannot be contacted for some reason. Also, the receiver most certainly needs a P2P implementation (and probably a strongly validating one) to verify incoming transactions, so having him broadcast it shouldn't be hard. I don't think the client should be required to stay online to broadcast at all, after a paymentACK is received. The transaction arrived safely at that point. -- Pieter