From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0602CB65 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:28:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 09:09:58 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0180.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430A98A9 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59BE1802B8F3 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:02:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9FB181D3043 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:02:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 65654063797068657270756E6B2E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 3, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, ee@cypherpunk.org, :, RULES_HIT:1:2:41:72:152:355:379:541:962:967:973:983:988:989:1189:1208:1212:1221:1260:1261:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1431:1436:1437:1515:1516:1517:1518:1575:1588:1589:1592:1594:1730:1777:1792:2068:2069:2525:2527:2561:2564:2682:2685:2692:2693:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3354:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4039:4049:4362:5007:6670:6678:7652:7875:7903:8557:8603:9025:9908:10346:10848:11658:11914:12043:12297:12740:12760:12895:12986:13019:13146:13149:13161:13229:13230:13237:13845:14096:14516:14659:14725:21080:21401:21433:21451:21524:21627:21659:21740:21788:21888:21939:30038:30054:30062:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:1:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: trick49_87f7a197bfe06 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 10396 Received: from [10.0.198.74] (unknown [69.36.182.80]) (Authenticated sender: ee@cypherpunk.org) by omf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:02:14 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-104C8BA7-1577-4BD8-8338-8220DF362311 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ee@cypherpunk.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:02:09 +0200 Message-Id: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A878) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:30:58 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a singular payment protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:28:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail-104C8BA7-1577-4BD8-8338-8220DF362311 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A proposal for a new blockchain-agnostic payment protocol: https://cypherpunk.org/2019/11/10/towards-a-singular-payment-protocol/ Includes the following characteristics: - can be used with crypto or fiat currencies - multiple currency options for a single transaction - multiple payments in a single transaction - allow a payment in one currency, but the value to be referenced from a sec= ond currency - fee payment by sender or recipient - calculation of valuation and fees through common trusted third parties This is a proposal for a new payment protocol that is not linked to a specif= ic blockchain, and could be supported by many of them, as well as fiat curre= ncies. With one system, wallet developers working on multiple currencies cou= ld still look to a single payment system, and thus full support for a single= protocol would increase. I understand that some people will oppose something like this simply because= it supports other coins, but I ask that it be looked at from the perspectiv= e of a) does it offer better functionality for Bitcoin, and b) would increas= ed support by more wallets for a payment protocol be better for Bitcoin? If t= hose are true, and I think they are, then this can be developed to the benef= it of everyone. This is the first section, focused on the actual payments. Other future sect= ions are planned to include a section on smart contracts and tokens, and a t= ransport mechanism for private communications between buyer and seller. The goal would be to transform this into a BIP, but I think it needs some di= scussion first. I would appreciate constructive criticism on the proposal. W= hile I=E2=80=99m open to the argument that payment protocols need to be coin= -specific, I think at this point it would be more useful to discuss the func= tionality first. Nothing in this section is really blockchain-specific, and the goal would be= to keep it that way, and offer the same functionality to everyone. I thank anyone who takes the time to read this proposal, and I hope to see g= ood feedback on it. Thank you, EE --Apple-Mail-104C8BA7-1577-4BD8-8338-8220DF362311 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A proposal for a new blockchain-agnost= ic payment protocol:


https://cypherpunk.org/2019/11/10/towards-a-singular-payment-protoco= l/<= /p>


Includes the following charac= teristics:


- can be u= sed with crypto or fiat currencies

- multiple currency option= s for a single transaction

- multiple payments in a single tr= ansaction

- allow a payment in one currency, but the value to= be referenced from a second currency

- fee payment by sender= or recipient

- calculation of valuation and fees through comm= on trusted third parties


This is a proposal for a new paymen= t protocol that is not linked to a specific blockchain, and could be support= ed by many of them, as well as fiat currencies. With one system, wallet deve= lopers working on multiple currencies could still look to a single payment s= ystem, and thus full support for a single protocol would increase.


I understand that some peop= le will oppose something like this simply because it supports other coins, b= ut I ask that it be looked at from the perspective of a) does it offer bette= r functionality for Bitcoin, and b) would increased support by more wallets f= or a payment protocol be better for Bitcoin? If those are true, and I think t= hey are, then this can be developed to the benefit of everyone.


This is the first section, focu= sed on the actual payments. Other future sections are planned to include a s= ection on smart contracts and tokens, and a transport mechanism for private c= ommunications between buyer and seller.


The goal would be to transform this into a BIP, but I t= hink it needs some discussion first. I would appreciate constructive critici= sm on the proposal. While I=E2=80=99m open to the argument that payment prot= ocols need to be coin-specific, I think at this point it would be more usefu= l to discuss the functionality first.


Nothing in this section is really blockchain-specific, a= nd the goal would be to keep it that way, and offer the same functionality t= o everyone.


I tha= nk anyone who takes the time to read this proposal, and I hope to see good f= eedback on it.


Th= ank you,

EE



= --Apple-Mail-104C8BA7-1577-4BD8-8338-8220DF362311--