Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-06 Thread Mike Hearn
Escrow/multisig is complicated enough to wait for another day. But certainly having a payment protocol is an important step towards it On 6 Dec 2012 07:32, Andreas Petersson andr...@petersson.at wrote: During/before the Payment Request there should be a method to exchange the public keys to be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-06 Thread Gavin Andresen
Spec updated yet again: https://gist.github.com/4120476 Renamed to PaymentRequest/PaymentACK. Added a 'network' field (main or test) to PaymentRequest so testnet and main network (and alterna-chain) payment requests don't get confused. Updated description of PaymentRequest.outputs: outputs:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-06 Thread Mike Hearn
Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the concatenation of, why not just make it a signature over the serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo code). Otherwise it seems like we'd need more code than really necessary. We can state explicitly tags must be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-06 Thread Alan Reiner
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote: When I say pass around I'm not thinking of users copying and pasting, that would be a terrible user experience; all of that communication needs to happen automatically behind the scenes. Lets tackle that after we've

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-06 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the concatenation of, why not just make it a signature over the serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo code). Otherwise it seems like we'd