>> The idea is to simplify implementation. Existing software can be used >> as is to sign and validate PoPs. But I do agree that it would be a >> cleaner specification if we would make the PoP invalid as a >> transaction. I'm open to changes here. I do like the idea to prepend a >> constant string. But that would require changes in transaction signing >> and validation code, wouldn't it? > > > Yes, of course. An alternative is adding a 21M BTC output at the end, or > bitflipping the txin prevout hashes, or another reversible transformation on > the transaction data that is guaranteed to invalidate it.
If we do decide to make Pops invalid as transactions, there are a lot of ways to do that. I guess the main question is if we should make Pops invalid as transactions or not. So far I prefer to keep them valid for the above reason. > > I think that the risk of asking people to sign something that is not an > actual transaction, but could be used as one, is very scary. > I would feel comfortable doing it. It's just a matter of trusting your wallet, which you already do with your ordinary transactions. >> >> > Also, I would call it "proof of transaction intent", as it's a >> > commitment to >> > a transaction and proof of its validity, but not a proof that an actual >> > transaction took place, nor a means to prevent it from being double >> > spent. >> >> >> Naming is hard. I think a simpler name that explains what its main >> purpose is (prove that you paid for something) is better than a name >> that exactly tries to explain what it is. > > > "Proof of Payment" indeed does make me think it's something that proves you > paid. But as described, that is not what a PoP does. It proves the ability > to create a particular transaction, and committing to it. There is no actual > payment involved (plus, payment makes me think you're talking about BIP70 > payments, not simple Bitcoin transactions). > >> >> "Proof of transaction >> intent" does not help me understand what this is about. But I would >> like to see more name suggestions. The name does not prevent people >> from using it for other purposes, ie internet over telephone network. > > > I don't understand why something like "Proof of Transaction Intent" would be > incompatible with internet over telephone network either... > No, I meant that it's ok to call it Proof of Payment even though people may use it for other stuff. > -- > Pieter > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
