Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-29 Thread Jouke Hofman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We have BIP70 already in use (over a hundred paid requests). Could you elaborate on why this needs changing? On 28-04-14 14:39, Gavin Andresen wrote: There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests here:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-29 Thread Gavin
Consensus is the spec should be clarified to match current behavior, so it won't change. -- Gavin Andresen On Apr 29, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Jouke Hofman jo...@bitonic.nl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We have BIP70 already in use (over a hundred paid requests).

[Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-28 Thread Gavin Andresen
There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/41 The issue is what to do with the signature field before signing. The code Mike and I initially wrote does this: request.set_signature(string()); (sets signature to the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-28 Thread Mike Hearn
Who cares what it is? Setting to an empty byte array is fine, IMO. The payment protocol is already rolling out. It's implemented in several wallets, BitPay implements it, Coinbase is implementing it, etc. -10 for changing such a basic thing at this point. It'd cause chaos for the early

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-28 Thread Ryan X. Charles
Agreed with Mike. It doesn't really matter what the signature field is set to. Changing the standard now is too hard with too little benefit. On 4/28/14, 12:14 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: Who cares what it is? Setting to an empty byte array is fine, IMO. The payment protocol is already rolling out.