From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1V7BbO-0002ik-Ej for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:49:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.181; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7BbN-0005v6-RO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:49:06 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x14so461557ief.26 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.124.10 with SMTP id me10mr636141igb.40.1375912140628; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:49:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP17xEKcPOvQEBuDs-JXaMtEuOcRp8UvH4dvVDc=PyyqsA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABsx9T0Ly67ZNJhoRQk0L9Q0-ucq3e=24b5Tg6GRKspRKKtP-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBhb3WOYnWRc020QbGwE0W4XeWWmXXTqYyAqrtB7h0+b8A@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T0o2BN+UyZt-TYcEXX_U0ztP3Rq3+arr_2C1MPEtU_dUg@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP2+D4xu0t2efRPfg0t5gD8RRBk=KQEJH+0FF5J=vBmwiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBheF45bsx5it-0v1QjDW--t5UkZZjNjf9wt3d7XgUXLgw@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP17xEKcPOvQEBuDs-JXaMtEuOcRp8UvH4dvVDc=PyyqsA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:49:00 +0200 Message-ID: <CAPg+sBirjUdXu+kWnxpX9Shahf9dxBnGbMF+r75oduej7QFrmQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> 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: 1V7BbN-0005v6-RO Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> 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: <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, 07 Aug 2013 21:49:06 -0000 On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote: > >> My concerns here are: >> * Making sure wallet applications can function without supporting the >> P2P protocol (which drops a huge implementation overhead for simple - >> perhaps hardware-based - wallets) > > > How would such wallets get transactions into their wallet in the first > place? By connecting to some other client, presumably. Have a small hardware client that is able to do payments via NFC/QR/... directly with a merchant, and can get 'recharged' by connecting with your desktop client, for example. Maybe too futuristic to be a concern, but it nicely illustrates how doing direct sender-to-receiver negotiation can help decoupling tasks. > I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but doing more work to > prevent transactions being announced to the network feels weird. Ok. -- Pieter