>> 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

Reply via email to