IMO the moderate success of BIP70 is caused by its complexity. Since the amount of data in a BIP70 payment request does not fit in a bitcoin: URI, an https server is required to serve the requests.
Only large merchants are able to maintain such an infrastructure; (even Coinbase recently failed at it, they forgot to update their certificate). For end users that is completely unpractical. The main benefit of BIP70 is that the payment request is signed by the requestor; this gives the sender a proof that they are sending to the right person, and that the person actually requested the payment. The same benefit can be achieved without the complexity of BIP70, by extending the Bitcoin URI scheme. The requestor is authenticated using DNSSEC, and the payment request is signed using an EC private key. A domain name and an EC signature are short enough to fit in a Bitcoin URI and to be shared by QR code or SMS text. bitcoin:address?amount=xx&message=yyy&name=john.example.com&sig=zzz The URI scheme is extended with two fields: name: DNS name containing a public key or bitcoin address sig: signature That extension is sufficient to provide authenticated requests, without requiring a https server. The signed data can be serialized from the URI, and DNSSEC verification succeeds without requesting extra data from the requestor. The only assumption is that the verifier is able to make DNS requests. I am willing to write a BIP if other wallet developers are interested. Le 20/06/2016 19:33, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev a écrit : > BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO: > > - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility is > desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol. Not too late > to support JSON messages as the standard going forward > > - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole form > of mechant identification. alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp and > possibly keybase seem like good ideas. personally, i like keybase, since > there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can sell with > a github id, for example) > > - missing an optional client supplied identification > > - lack of basic subscription support > > *Proposed for subscriptions:* > > - BIP0047 payment codes are recommended instead of wallet addresses when > establishing subscriptions. Or, merchants can specify replacement > addresses in ACK/NACK responses. UI confirms are *required *when there > are no replacement addresses or payment codes used. > > - Wallets must confirm and store subscriptions, and are responsible for > initiating them at the specified interval. > > - Intervals can *only *be from a preset list: weekly, biweekly, or 1, > 2,3,4,6 or 12 months. Intervals missed by more than 3 days cause > suspension until the user re-verifies. > > - Wallets *may *optionally ask the user whether they want to be notified > and confirm every interval - or not. Wallets that do not ask *must *notify > before initiating each payment. Interval confirmations should begin at > *least > *1 day in advance of the next payment. > > > *Proposed in general:* > - JSON should be used instead of protocol buffers going forward. Easier to > use, explain extend. > > - "Extendible" URI-like scheme to support multi-mode identity mechanisms on > both payment and subscription requests. Support for keybase://, netki:// > and others as alternates to https://. > > - Support for client as well as merchant multi-mode verification > > - Ideally, the identity verification URI scheme is somewhat > orthogonal/independent of the payment request itself > > Question: > > Should this be a new BIP? I know netki's BIP75 is out there - but I think > it's too specific and too reliant on the domain name system. > > Maybe an identity-protocol-agnostic BIP + solid implementation of a couple > major protocols without any mention of payment URI's ... just a way of > sending and receiving identity verified messages in general? > > I would be happy to implement plugins for identity protocols, if anyone > thinks this is a good idea. > > Does anyone think https:// or keybase, or PGP or netki all by themselves, > is enough - or is it always better to have an extensible protocol? > > - Erik Aronesty > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
