From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ww9pO-0006Sm-NT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:46:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ww9pM-0005A9-Vb for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:46:30 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ww9pF-0005Wm-Ue for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:21 +0200 Received: from f053034120.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.34.120]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:21 +0200 Received: from andreas by f053034120.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:21 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:46:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f053034120.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Ww9pM-0005A9-Vb 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:46:30 -0000 Yes I meant only the "supports_instant" is not needed. "trusted_instant_providers" makes sense to me. Generally I like the simplicity of this BIP. Still, I have more questions: What is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message already contains a transactions field that could be signed. Can you briefly describe the whole flow of messages on an example, including the BIP70 messages? Should we allow adding multiple signatures (from different instant providers or maybe while transitioning to another PKI)? On 06/15/2014 11:22 AM, Lawrence Nahum wrote: > Andreas Schildbach schildbach.de> writes: > >> Just a quick comment: >> >> The supports_instant field seems redundant to me. First, as per your >> spec, you can derive it from trusted_instant_providers. And second, why >> do you need it at all? Protobuf is designed so it will simply ignore >> fields you don't know. So you can just send the instant_* fields in the >> Payment message without harm. > > > > Agreed, supports_instant is redundant and can/should/will go. > > trusted_instant_providers on the other hand I think is needed. > > Sometimes the providers will charge fees for instant. > > While the software can ignore the fields, > users may not want to pay for instant when the merchant may not accept it or > care (even if it would not break the protocol it would still be a waste of > fees) > > Does it make sense? > > Not all transactions from GreenAddress provide double spend protection, there > are additional checks on prevout that are normally not done when spending > normally, etc > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions > Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems > Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. > Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration > http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems >