On Monday, August 10, 2015 6:32:10 PM Ross Nicoll wrote: > BTW, did you mean to take this off-list?
No, accidental. I'll re-CC it on this email. > On 10/08/2015 00:46, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Sunday, August 09, 2015 2:12:24 PM Ross Nicoll via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> BIP 70 currently lists two networks, main and test (inferred as > >> testnet3) for payment protocol requests. This means that different > >> testnets cannot be supported trivially, and the protocol cannot be used > >> for alternative coins (or, lacks context to indicate which coin the > >> request applies to, which is particularly dangerous in cases where coins > >> share address prefixes). > > > > I don't see how address prefixes are relevant - the payment protocol > > doesn't use addresses at all... > > Good point, trying to hard to preempt questions. > > >> I propose adding a new optional "genesis" field as a 16 byte sequence > >> containing the SHA-256 hash of the genesis block of the network the > >> request belongs to, uniquely identifying chains without any requirement > >> for a central registry. > > > > Genesis blocks are not necessarily unique. For example, Litecoin and > > Feathercoin share the same one. > > Had missed that, and there's no easy alternatives. BIP 44 chain IDs > don't identify different testnets, and do not cover regtest at all. Regtest isn't really a network at all, just a testing mode of Bitcoin Core... > Most recent block hash could be used and also provides fork > detection, but in doing so advertises if a merchant is on the wrong > fork. Will think about it. Is that a bad thing? > > I'd appreciate initial feedback on the idea, and if there's no major > > objections I'll raise this as a BIP. > > I don't see how this is related to improving Bitcoin... > > Well, mostly I'm trying not to avoid the situation where any accidental > mixing of files is dangerous (funds can easily be sent on the wrong > blockchain), nor with multiple standards (which is where we are at the > moment). It improves things in avoiding future problems, rather than in > the immediate term. Sorry, I meant to stress that BIPs are for *Bitcoin* improvements specifically. Things which only improve altcoins, while a perfectly fine thing to standardise, are outside the scope of what belongs in a BIP. Perhaps, however, this could be made to kill 2 birds with one stone, by ensuring it addresses the need for payments made of bitcoins on a sidechain? For this, a merchant who wants a sidechain payment would presumably be able to provide a script from the main chain already, but an extension allowing payment directly on the sidechain (at the customer's choice) avoids the need to round-trip it... Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
