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 7D9541012 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:31:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from GER01-LEJ-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.de (mail-le1ger01on0056.outbound.protection.outlook.de [51.5.72.56]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE39EDF for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:31:47 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=k99CqB6bD5QzAbdzmdCGuPtjf0MQfaxPeMilRnlENun2inYOBsn3/syT2mLsONPV9Mpql7WRq5o2GEB7vBacKyQPuUyitJOT2XZgA7YNWaziHYSc1W79vnpZi2ol/uSusK5ukH0TLi8NiHqgMBBl1MnM6isAdRe4tF1mG+XS6rs0Z73xAzn40qOCNK9exwABOwVNLxb+1pYT9yL3L43gOd5Gyy0G5xMyvEFxmO3+s8+08dRqR43gpv4ejtrDYjEji1aiB7FQw+piLKGzxB/bRdnyVTVDUo/8yAejcIBanaD19TG++q6nhxCK+PqX7DZtIzl3cBzqdQ7/LFBrMvF37w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7dSH1LZec9X61dU2AzMZvvsy3ym07kpHfXt6CHRhTqs=; b=PcMscQm5PmY7LEKamb3OfJNweqgTUfDkiMfOcXJ2h+86m02BPRMU5yQZo2gs7alrOtmbk9Nn1wCs0N9iTJiGW4TrmIQNfPOZt7MEqCxl0MqzjT6hKf+2+2rTCh4BvRTVUbJelFSKBO5AIUz6R2+DQvjTuq0Q8sfjZacrxsNqsWeMSQVmvVBhpiAAhPMdEKPyOqj3mrYDZwnbOWcIOV5PhHuNSGtp2KVA6kdVPhscBolezlCOhwhpaeAjzTTAsk0Y+ib71bNwIknCgnL1JzG1KUXDw4nW2dQBmbp3s7besP3vHysSqkfJc8uKOrpgkhm7l/SnAK7la9LQo9XajmvP2A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=northernbitcoin.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=northernbitcoin.com; dkim=pass header.d=northernbitcoin.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=northernbitcoinag.onmicrosoft.de; s=selector1-northernbitcoinag-onmicrosoft-de; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7dSH1LZec9X61dU2AzMZvvsy3ym07kpHfXt6CHRhTqs=; b=VaqDGONL4AhLsO//WQe8VXVyaoGI4YDoNPSFhwQ5jPKPDphRa5zhxMkgBkfZNhvD8ePcjNcwgTNu5TBvvzKCFr7kDI0mXBTcHaZ4aMagCi0xNIdN4t6rrKab0oWjhHbHz7fJcUHWQJDoZ2ppNYXKKGWx+7RIqdCkFL8JSCrU8H0= Received: from FRXPR01MB0454.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE (10.158.152.149) by FRXPR01MB1064.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE (10.158.157.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2430.25; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:31:45 +0000 Received: from FRXPR01MB0454.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::9014:4ccd:d9e:efb3]) by FRXPR01MB0454.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::9014:4ccd:d9e:efb3%8]) with mapi id 15.20.2430.028; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:31:45 +0000 From: Ben Dewaal To: EE via bitcoin-dev Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a singular payment protocol Thread-Index: AQHVmbm45ePWoU1fUEKN/UAwnLQawKeIxyiggACarICAATDRpQ== Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:31:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-CA, en-DE, en-NZ, en-US Content-Language: en-CA X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=b.dewaal@northernbitcoin.com; x-originating-ip: [2a00:c320:2:1:bc86:b3e:c862:7820] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5bc602b3-9f58-443a-b39f-08d768fe9c5d x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: FRXPR01MB1064: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 02213C82F8 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(39830400003)(376002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(11346002)(55016002)(66556008)(305945005)(76116006)(66574012)(229853002)(446003)(46003)(6116002)(86362001)(64756008)(66946007)(7736002)(256004)(14444005)(508600001)(2906002)(9686003)(53546011)(102836004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(186003)(66476007)(66446008)(7696005)(76176011)(33656002)(8676002)(5660300002)(14454004)(476003)(316002)(486006)(15650500001)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(6916009)(6246003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:FRXPR01MB1064; H:FRXPR01MB0454.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: northernbitcoin.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: GKpPuoRcvp3/BYJeoDHxGqYaOEMGvpTALXI5A69Du1Mjyv2Xd3MFMZM9wqDUuwqRwrx2t57x2aofja0RDaIkZg6KbJA/WekuHelTyLhQxoJ0+5ZqYQDwYOE63fPltVciocWgbv+h0hqooTVpk1ZRmuB69DCL4JdzUWiiJGva/p5l5MVbjJD/qpMZOp7YZuO6RwSBiieWEUXw4yA3oxYSTXal8TeQCQCCRXe/dagzHpvcUdFhcIr1ZJ0v0KZ/ogmw5TrAFnOzEpWzylq67qTtXQ3a8tVOKMLuq3xy8pdxsLX7LV+bUElD2/DFYPzdMgUi9RDlUp9FQCn8l/N2J9+WpFJqD+Wwl4KdcN/WlRmNaHrzuWkGYHBCJaAo1McGSPOv3CptkIIu3LXCnUiCaJUZDzqs4F3s9eOgal+MZZzP2dgQyCvFpRiAkmSp/fsrdegU x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: northernbitcoin.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5bc602b3-9f58-443a-b39f-08d768fe9c5d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Nov 2019 12:31:44.9833 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: c0b5a774-f061-4411-9d7b-16ec8f6deb96 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: vRNNKI6nsotgTLCkyzpRJx5CmPSqdfO3D6o5X030NL4vGdVD44wFIXhxnMS1XiDyNAHnHPV2R11HqpcTEhON9tz1+x93GAeNfeA0csFAAgE= X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: FRXPR01MB1064 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:29:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:31:49 -0000 On 13 Nov 2019, at 18:49, EE wrote:=0A= =0A= > To be fully realized, clearly it would be best to have the others depreci= ated.=0A= =0A= And I'd argue that others won't be deprecated without a strong reason to sw= itch. Bitcoin is an open protocol and no individual gets to dictate "the ri= ght way". Just because something makes it in to a draft BIP, it doesn't me= an it's going to be agreed or implemented.=0A= =0A= > I would argue almost no existing standard is fully implemented in any wa= llet.=0A= =0A= This may be the case, but for Bitcoin at least, BIP-21 is relatively well s= tandardised even if not fully implemented by everyone. That said, I think = most wallet developers - including myself and my team - would rather keep t= hings simple until we see a clear way to proceed. My current expectation i= s to support BOLT11 with BIP-21 fallback, plus BIP-21 standalone. We're bu= ilding a Bitcoin wallet, not a "cryptocurrency" wallet, so the complexities= and difficulties that are faced by things other than Bitcoin really aren't= a concern to me.=0A= =0A= > BIP-70 was just depreciated by Bitcoin Core=0A= =0A= Just to nitpick: BIP-70 was just deprecated *in* Bitcoin Core. Again, see = above where no individual gets to dictate those sorts of things.=0A= =0A= > Part of the problem here is that these are under supported, and because t= hey are different, it takes longer for wallet developers to implement.=0A= =0A= This works on the assumption of people building cryptocurrency wallets rath= er than Bitcoin wallets. I reject the idea that that basic assumption has = any merit to it since in practical terms I see no push towards adoption of = anything other than Bitcoin, and in theoretical terms, I see no way that an= ything other than Bitcoin will continue to exist over the mid to long term.= Spending effort to add standards to Bitcoin that bring no benefit to Bitc= oin simply seems like a waste of time.=0A= =0A= > I think it=92s a mistake to say that the payment protocol is part of the = blockchain and needs to be developed in tandem with it. In almost every way= , it is not part of the blockchain, and is a layer above it.=0A= =0A= Here, we agree. Payments are indeed separate to the underlying technology.= The Lightning Network is a payment network and can be used with other blo= ckchains (assuming you're willing to trust their fundamentally flawed secur= ity models). With this in mind, why define a new standard when those other= projects could just start using Lightning and take advantage of its invoic= e standard?=0A= =0A= > the changes described bring a lot of nice functionality (like being able = to ask for payment in one currency based on the value of a second one).=0A= =0A= I don't understand the value of this. Right now, I use Bitcoin exclusively= , but goods are services around me are (usually) priced in euro. The merch= ant will quote a price in euro and their system will ask me to pay in Bitco= in. My wallet will then display this to me with an equivalent euro value. = It may differ slightly due to different exchange rate providers being call= ed, but I am clear on what I need to pay and have an idea of whether it acc= ords to the listed price of the item.=0A= If however as you suggest, the merchant were to provide a payment request f= or =805.00 in BTC, then they'd be reliant on my exchange rate provider to p= ay them. What if they don't accept what my wallet then says? It's adding = confusion and complexity where that's neither needed nor wanted. The curre= nt behaviour is superior to that.=0A= =0A= > I don=92t think this is too difficult to define.=0A= > A well written spec should be able to foresee issues of conflict and desi= gn around them.=0A= =0A= I don't have that level of optimism. You're talking about a very broad arr= ay of different systems each with their own unique features, metadata, and = expected two-way communication steps. It feels to me like you're trying to= shoehorn too much in to one thing and would end up with the worst of all p= ossible worlds as the result.=0A= =0A= I'm sorry for the quite negative-sounding answer here, but as my team is in= the process of building a wallet, I'm strongly against proposals that - if= adopted - would add complexity to our work without any obvious benefits to= us. I feel like Lightning invoices and the current discussions around enh= ancements and improvements in them are more than sufficient to cover our ne= eds for the foreseeable future and beyond that I'd prefer solutions built o= n top of that than something built with complexity that I see as entirely u= nnecessary.=0A= =0A= Regards,=0A= Ben=0A= -- =