Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-06-22 📝 Original message:> I don't understand why ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-06-22
📝 Original message:> I don't understand why subscriptions would need to be built into the
protocol.
Simple: Because the PaymentRequest is somewhat counter-intuitively a
/response/ to a customer initiated action. It's not something the
merchant can initiate (of course, logically this makes sense... how can a
merchant know how to connect to some random android app).
Customers initiate all InvoiceRequests BIP0075 clarifies this. BIP0070
merely says that the customer "somehow indicates they are ready to pay".
BIP0075 formalizes a standard way to do this.
In no way do merchants initiate anything (of course). Subscription
information must reside in the customers wallet, in response to a
merchant's advice to set up subscription. Tacking parameters on to a
PaymentRequest or PaymentAck is the only good way to do this within BIP
70/75.
The only thing to hash out is exactly what fields to tack on and what they
mean. ( subscription amount / currency / interval / interval_type ...
can't think of anything else )
Wallets are responsible for initiating the subscriptions on behalf of the
user. Recommendations on how to do this should go into the spec.
Of course any wallet can, with BIP0075 add support for subscriptions
without any spec - just let the user set them up manually. But it would
be nice if a user didn't have to enter the main parameters for
subscriptions... too easy to get times amounts, etc wrong.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:11 PM, James MacWhyte <macwhyte at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I like your idea about expanding Bitcoin URI's to include signatures. For
> BIP75 store and forward servers we are already thinking the DNS record
> would have the user's public key as well as the URL of their store and
> forward endpoint, so as soon as that becomes a standard you could use it
> just for the public key part. Expanding the Bitcoin URI should be done as
> well, for people who want to go the simpler route and not rely on servers.
>
> Erik, Andy, everyone else,
>
> I don't understand why subscriptions would need to be built into the
> protocol. With BIP75 the merchant could automatically issue a
> PaymentRequest message every X amount of time, and the customer's wallet
> would either display the request like normal or be set to pre-authorize
> requests from the merchant. If the merchant goes out of business, the
> requests would stop coming. This sounds like a UI issue and not a
> protocol-level requirement.
>
> If you think I'm wrong, please explain why :)
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:35 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> - Payment channels seem clearly inappropriate for things like monthly
>> subscriptions, the use of nlocktime, etc.
>>
>> - Merchants cannot send requests to users for future payments, because
>> users don't run servers that they can connect to. That's why BIP0070 works
>> the way it does.
>>
>> - Need to have an interval for subscriptions, at a minimum, and stored in
>> the wallet so next months payment can go out on time
>>
>> - Support for varying currency conversion needs to be baked in to
>> wallets. Fortunately, by adding advisory subscription info to the
>> paymentrequest, this is left up to the wallet to
>> secure/validate/repeat/convert/etc. as needed for each subscription.
>>
>> - The UI you describe is nice - but not unique to the solution.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Andy Schroder <info at andyschroder.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand the need for people to make repeated payments to
>>> individuals in real life that they know, without the payee every even
>>> taking the effort to make a formal payment request (say you're just paying
>>> a family member of friend back for picking something up for you at the
>>> store, and you've already payed them many times before).
>>>
>>> For a subscription, wouldn't it be better to promote payment channels or
>>> just send another payment request? I've been brainstorming recently about a
>>> model where service providers could deliver invoices, receipts, and payment
>>> requests in a standardized and secure way. In addition to having a send,
>>> receive, and transaction history tab in your bitcoin wallet, you'd also
>>> have an open payment channels tab (which would include all applications on
>>> your computer that have an open real time payment channel, such as a wifi
>>> access point, web browser, voip provider, etc.), as well as a "bills to
>>> pay" tab. Since everything would be automated and consolidated locally, you
>>> wouldn't have to deal with logging into a million different websites to get
>>> the bills and then pay them. If it were this easy, why would you ever want
>>> to do a recurring payment from a single payment request? I understand why
>>> you may think you want to given current work flows, but I'm wondering if it
>>> may be better to just skip over to a completely better way of doing things.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Schroder
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/22/2016 11:30 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>>
>>>> My conclusion at the bottom of that post was to keep BIP 75 the same,
>>>> don't change a bit, and stick any subscription information (future payment
>>>> schedule) in the PaymentACK. Then the wallet then re-initiates an invoice
>>>> (unattended or attended.. up to the user), after the subscription interval
>>>> is passed. Subscriptions are pretty important for Bitcoin to be used as a
>>>> real payment system.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160622/00d7edc0/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:> I don't understand why subscriptions would need to be built into the
protocol.
Simple: Because the PaymentRequest is somewhat counter-intuitively a
/response/ to a customer initiated action. It's not something the
merchant can initiate (of course, logically this makes sense... how can a
merchant know how to connect to some random android app).
Customers initiate all InvoiceRequests BIP0075 clarifies this. BIP0070
merely says that the customer "somehow indicates they are ready to pay".
BIP0075 formalizes a standard way to do this.
In no way do merchants initiate anything (of course). Subscription
information must reside in the customers wallet, in response to a
merchant's advice to set up subscription. Tacking parameters on to a
PaymentRequest or PaymentAck is the only good way to do this within BIP
70/75.
The only thing to hash out is exactly what fields to tack on and what they
mean. ( subscription amount / currency / interval / interval_type ...
can't think of anything else )
Wallets are responsible for initiating the subscriptions on behalf of the
user. Recommendations on how to do this should go into the spec.
Of course any wallet can, with BIP0075 add support for subscriptions
without any spec - just let the user set them up manually. But it would
be nice if a user didn't have to enter the main parameters for
subscriptions... too easy to get times amounts, etc wrong.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:11 PM, James MacWhyte <macwhyte at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I like your idea about expanding Bitcoin URI's to include signatures. For
> BIP75 store and forward servers we are already thinking the DNS record
> would have the user's public key as well as the URL of their store and
> forward endpoint, so as soon as that becomes a standard you could use it
> just for the public key part. Expanding the Bitcoin URI should be done as
> well, for people who want to go the simpler route and not rely on servers.
>
> Erik, Andy, everyone else,
>
> I don't understand why subscriptions would need to be built into the
> protocol. With BIP75 the merchant could automatically issue a
> PaymentRequest message every X amount of time, and the customer's wallet
> would either display the request like normal or be set to pre-authorize
> requests from the merchant. If the merchant goes out of business, the
> requests would stop coming. This sounds like a UI issue and not a
> protocol-level requirement.
>
> If you think I'm wrong, please explain why :)
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:35 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> - Payment channels seem clearly inappropriate for things like monthly
>> subscriptions, the use of nlocktime, etc.
>>
>> - Merchants cannot send requests to users for future payments, because
>> users don't run servers that they can connect to. That's why BIP0070 works
>> the way it does.
>>
>> - Need to have an interval for subscriptions, at a minimum, and stored in
>> the wallet so next months payment can go out on time
>>
>> - Support for varying currency conversion needs to be baked in to
>> wallets. Fortunately, by adding advisory subscription info to the
>> paymentrequest, this is left up to the wallet to
>> secure/validate/repeat/convert/etc. as needed for each subscription.
>>
>> - The UI you describe is nice - but not unique to the solution.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Andy Schroder <info at andyschroder.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand the need for people to make repeated payments to
>>> individuals in real life that they know, without the payee every even
>>> taking the effort to make a formal payment request (say you're just paying
>>> a family member of friend back for picking something up for you at the
>>> store, and you've already payed them many times before).
>>>
>>> For a subscription, wouldn't it be better to promote payment channels or
>>> just send another payment request? I've been brainstorming recently about a
>>> model where service providers could deliver invoices, receipts, and payment
>>> requests in a standardized and secure way. In addition to having a send,
>>> receive, and transaction history tab in your bitcoin wallet, you'd also
>>> have an open payment channels tab (which would include all applications on
>>> your computer that have an open real time payment channel, such as a wifi
>>> access point, web browser, voip provider, etc.), as well as a "bills to
>>> pay" tab. Since everything would be automated and consolidated locally, you
>>> wouldn't have to deal with logging into a million different websites to get
>>> the bills and then pay them. If it were this easy, why would you ever want
>>> to do a recurring payment from a single payment request? I understand why
>>> you may think you want to given current work flows, but I'm wondering if it
>>> may be better to just skip over to a completely better way of doing things.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Schroder
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/22/2016 11:30 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>>
>>>> My conclusion at the bottom of that post was to keep BIP 75 the same,
>>>> don't change a bit, and stick any subscription information (future payment
>>>> schedule) in the PaymentACK. Then the wallet then re-initiates an invoice
>>>> (unattended or attended.. up to the user), after the subscription interval
>>>> is passed. Subscriptions are pretty important for Bitcoin to be used as a
>>>> real payment system.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160622/00d7edc0/attachment.html>;