Sjors Provoost [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-09-28 📝 Original message:Op 28 sep. 2017, om 17:13 ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-09-28
📝 Original message:Op 28 sep. 2017, om 17:13 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>>> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
>>> expiration time.
>>
>> The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it on an invoice is much easier, so I would expect people to keep doing that.
>
> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is
> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts
> as the invoice.
True and the more complicated fields, like a digital signature, are optional. Are you suggesting BIP-70 payment requests should be rendered with bech32? How long would those be if it's just the address and expiration date?
>
> Even more problematic, if you were to include an expiry date in a
> BIP-173 address and put that into a payment request, wallets wouldn't be
> allowed to parse that expiry date from the script without violating the
> BIP70 spec.
Do tools that generate BIP-70 payment requests generate addresses themselves or are those input manually by a user? In the former case, I assume it could avoid setting the optional expiration date?
Is it not allowed to scan the date even if it then sets the expires field to the same (redundant) value?
Sjors
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170928/9b3fb190/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:Op 28 sep. 2017, om 17:13 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>>> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
>>> expiration time.
>>
>> The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it on an invoice is much easier, so I would expect people to keep doing that.
>
> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is
> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts
> as the invoice.
True and the more complicated fields, like a digital signature, are optional. Are you suggesting BIP-70 payment requests should be rendered with bech32? How long would those be if it's just the address and expiration date?
>
> Even more problematic, if you were to include an expiry date in a
> BIP-173 address and put that into a payment request, wallets wouldn't be
> allowed to parse that expiry date from the script without violating the
> BIP70 spec.
Do tools that generate BIP-70 payment requests generate addresses themselves or are those input manually by a user? In the former case, I assume it could avoid setting the optional expiration date?
Is it not allowed to scan the date even if it then sets the expires field to the same (redundant) value?
Sjors
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170928/9b3fb190/attachment.sig>;