From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WwB7r-0000wI-N3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:09:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.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-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WwB7p-0001p9-SO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:09:39 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WwB7h-0000U9-Qx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:09:29 +0200 Received: from 93-35-10-132.ip52.fastwebnet.it ([93.35.10.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:09:29 +0200 Received: from lawrence by 93-35-10-132.ip52.fastwebnet.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:09:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Lawrence Nahum Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 93.35.10.132 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36) X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1WwB7p-0001p9-SO 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 14:09:39 -0000 Andreas Schildbach schildbach.de> writes: > 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. Transactions message sole purpose is to allow easy signing of all transactions i don't think you can serialise a single field maybe i missed something, not sure > Can you > briefly describe the whole flow of messages on an example, including the > BIP70 messages? I'll get back to the list with something tomorrow, can be useful in the BIP as an example anyway I guess. > Should we allow adding multiple signatures (from different instant > providers maybe in some different scheme of "instantness" that could be useful, although i wonder if it's possible to keep the BIP simple with such non immediately obvious use cases. > or maybe while transitioning to another PKI)? another PKI, not sure, I understand there are already somewhat weak industry schemes to revoke. I do wonder if there's any better and more "future proof" way. I'll think about it but for now I hope someone with more experience can share some insight.