Re: [Bitcoin-development] Standardizing automatic pre-negotiation of transaction terms with BIP70? (Emulating Amazon one-click purchase at all merchants)

2015-02-10 Thread Oleg Andreev
Let's say you're visiting an international webshop. But they don't ship to your country. Wouldn't you want to know that before your start filling the cart? With this, your wallet / browser extension could tell you right away that you can't shop there. No time wasted! Why my wallet has to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4

2015-02-12 Thread Oleg Andreev
On 12 Feb 2015, at 13:49, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: If unconfirmed payments become flaky enough that people stop using them, then a portion of the Bitcoin community will find workarounds like trusted third parties, trusted hardware, whatever and will just struggle one. Other people

Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4

2015-02-12 Thread Oleg Andreev
I think that is a misdirection on your part. The point of replace-by-fee is to make 0-confirms reliably unreliable. Currently people can get away with 0-confirms but it's only because most people arent actively double spending, and when they do it is for higher value targets. Double spend

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Providing Payment Request within URI

2015-02-26 Thread Oleg Andreev
/2015 04:58 PM, Oleg Andreev wrote: Hi, I wonder if there is a standard way to put Payment Request data into bitcoin: URI or directly into QR code. The goal is to allow device to generate a multi-output payment request on its own, without relying on the server and x509 certificates. When

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Providing Payment Request within URI

2015-02-26 Thread Oleg Andreev
Base43 is the same as any BaseX standard, but using a different alphabet (43 characters). It's meant to be used for efficiently storing binary data into QR codes. The alphabet is picked to match the 'Alphanumeric' input mode of QR codes as closely as possible, but at the same time be allowed

Re: [Bitcoin-development] 75%/95% threshold for transaction versions

2015-04-28 Thread Oleg Andreev
On 27 Apr 2015, at 21:21, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Even right now there are edge cases without good solutions, like how in a multisig environment any of the key holders can mutate transactions. Can't we add requirement for RFC6979 signatures to mitigate this? Of course,