I did misunderstand that. That changes things significantly. However, having paid is not the same as having had access to the input coins. What about shared wallets or coinjoin?
Also, if I understand correctly, there is no commitment to anything you're trying to say about the sender? So once I obtain a proof-of-payment from you about something you paid, I can go claim that it's mine? Why does anyone care who paid? This is like walking into a coffeshop, noticing I don't have money with me, let me friend pay for me, and then have the shop insist that I can't drink it because I'm not the buyer. Track payments, don't try to assign identities to payers. On Jun 15, 2015 11:35 AM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" <ka...@rosenbaum.se> wrote: > Hi Pieter! > > It is intended to be a proof that you *have paid* for something. Not > that you have the intent to pay for something. You cannot use PoP > without a transaction to prove. > > So, yes, it's just a proof of access to certain coins that you no longer > have. > > Maybe I don't understand you correctly? > > /Kalle > > 2015-06-15 11:27 GMT+02:00 Pieter Wuille <pieter.wui...@gmail.com>: > > Now that you have removed the outputs, I don't think it's even a intent > of > > payment, but just a proof of access to certain coins. > > > > On Jun 15, 2015 11:24 AM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" <ka...@rosenbaum.se> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all! > >> > >> I have made the discussed changes and updated my implementation > >> (https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc) accordingly. These are the > >> changes: > >> > >> * There is now only one output, the "pop output", of value 0. > >> * The sequence number of all inputs of the PoP must be set to 0. I > >> chose to set it to 0 for all inputs for simplicity. > >> * The lock_time of the PoP must be set to 499999999 (max block height > lock > >> time). > >> > >> The comments so far has been mainly positive or neutral. Are there any > >> major objections against any of the two proposals? If not, I will ask > >> Gregory Maxwell to assign them BIP numbers. > >> > >> The two BIP proposals can be found at > >> https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/Proof-of-Payment-BIP and > >> https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc/wiki/btcpop-scheme-BIP. The > source > >> for the Proof of Payment BIP proposal is also in-lined below. > >> > >> A number of alternative names have been proposed: > >> > >> * Proof of Potential > >> * Proof of Control > >> * Proof of Signature > >> * Signatory Proof > >> * Popo: Proof of payment origin > >> * Pots: Proof of transaction signer > >> * proof of transaction intent > >> * Declaration of intent > >> * Asset-access-and-action-affirmation, AAaAA, or A5 > >> * VeriBit > >> * CertiBTC > >> * VBit > >> * PayID > >> > >> Given this list, I still think "Proof of Payment" is the most > descriptive > >> to non-technical people. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Kalle > >> > >> > >> ################################################# > >> <pre> > >> BIP: <BIP number> > >> Title: Proof of Payment > >> Author: Kalle Rosenbaum <ka...@rosenbaum.se> > >> Status: Draft > >> Type: Standards Track > >> Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format> > >> </pre> > >> > >> == Abstract == > >> > >> This BIP describes how a wallet can prove to a server that it has the > >> ability to sign a certain transaction. > >> > >> == Motivation == > >> > >> There are several scenarios in which it would be useful to prove that > you > >> have paid for something. For example: > >> > >> * A pre-paid hotel room where your PoP functions as a key to the door. > >> * An online video rental service where you pay for a video and watch it > on > >> any device. > >> * An ad-sign where you pay in advance for e.g. 2 weeks exclusivity. > During > >> this period you can upload new content to the sign whenever you like > using > >> PoP. > >> * Log in to a pay site using a PoP. > >> * A parking lot you pay for monthly and the car authenticates itself > using > >> PoP. > >> * A lottery where all participants pay to the same address, and the > winner > >> is selected among the transactions to that address. You exchange the > prize > >> for a PoP for the winning transaction. > >> > >> With Proof of Payment, these use cases can be achieved without any > >> personal information (user name, password, e-mail address, etc) being > >> involved. > >> > >> == Rationale == > >> > >> Desirable properties: > >> > >> # A PoP should be generated on demand. > >> # It should only be usable once to avoid issues due to theft. > >> # It should be able to create a PoP for any payment, regardless of > script > >> type (P2SH, P2PKH, etc.). > >> # It should prove that you have enough credentials to unlock all the > >> inputs of the proven transaction. > >> # It should be easy to implement by wallets and servers to ease > adoption. > >> > >> Current methods of proving a payment: > >> > >> * In BIP0070, the PaymentRequest together with the transactions > fulfilling > >> the request makes some sort of proof. However, it does not meet 1, 2 or > 4 > >> and it obviously only meets 3 if the payment is made through BIP0070. > Also, > >> there's no standard way to request/provide the proof. If standardized it > >> would probably meet 5. > >> * Signing messages, chosen by the server, with the private keys used to > >> sign the transaction. This could meet 1 and 2 but probably not 3. This > is > >> not standardized either. 4 Could be met if designed so. > >> > >> If an input script type is P2SH, any satisfying script should do, just > as > >> if it was a payment. For M-of-N multisig scripts, that would mean that > any > >> set of M keys should be sufficient, not neccesarily the same set of M > keys > >> that signed the transaction. This is important because strictly > demanding > >> the same set of M keys would defeat the purpose of a multisig address. > >> > >> == Specification == > >> > >> === Data structure === > >> > >> A proof of payment for a transaction T, here called PoP(T), is used to > >> prove that one has ownership of the credentials needed to unlock all the > >> inputs of T. It has the exact same structure as a bitcoin transaction > with > >> the same inputs as T and in the same order as in T, but with each > sequence > >> number set to 0. There is exactly one output, here called the pop > output, > >> with value 0. The pop output must have the following format: > >> > >> OP_RETURN <version> <txid> <nonce> > >> > >> {| > >> ! Field !! Size [B] !! Description > >> |- > >> | <version> || 2 || Version, little endian, currently 0x01 > 0x00 > >> |- > >> | <txid> || 32 || The transaction to prove > >> |- > >> | <nonce> || 6 || Random data > >> |} > >> > >> The lock_time of the PoP must be set to 499999999 to prevent the PoP > from > >> being included in a block, should it appear on the bitcoin p2p network. > This > >> is also the reason for setting the sequence numbers to 0, since sequence > >> number of ffffffff would make lock_time ineffective. This specification > >> demands that all input sequence numbers are 0, not just one of them, > which > >> would be sufficient to make lock_time effective. This is for simplicity > >> reasons. > >> > >> An illustration of the PoP data structure and its original payment is > >> shown below. > >> > >> <pre> > >> T > >> +------------------------------------------------+ > >> |inputs | outputs | > >> | Value,Sequence | Value,Script | > >> +------------------------------------------------+ > >> |input0 1,ffffffff | 0,pay to A | > >> |input1 3,ffffffff | 2,OP_RETURN <some data> | > >> |input2 4,ffffffff | 1,pay to B | > >> | | 4,pay to C | > >> +------------------------------------------------+ > >> > >> PoP(T) > >> +-------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> | inputs | outputs | > >> | Value,Sequence | Value,Script | > >> +-------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> |input0 1,00000000 | 0,OP_RETURN <version> <txid> <nonce> | > >> |input1 3,00000000 | | > >> |input2 4,00000000 | | > >> +-------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> | lock_time=499999999 | > >> +-------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> </pre> > >> > >> The PoP is signed using the same signing process that is used for > bitcoin > >> transactions. > >> > >> The purpose of the nonce is to make it harder to use a stolen PoP; Once > >> the PoP has reached the server, that PoP is useless since the server > will > >> generate a new nonce for every PoP request. > >> > >> === Process === > >> > >> # A proof of payment request is sent from the server to the wallet. The > >> PoP request contains: > >> ## a random nonce > >> ## a destination where to send the PoP, for example a https URL > >> ## data hinting the wallet which transaction to create a proof for. For > >> example: > >> ##* txid, if known by the server > >> ##* PaymentRequest.PaymentDetails.merchant_data (in case of a BIP0070 > >> payment) > >> ##* amount, label, message or other information from a BIP0021 URI > >> # The wallet identifies a transaction T, if possible. Otherwise it asks > >> the user to select among the ones that match the hints in 1.iii. > >> # The wallet creates an unsigned PoP (UPoP) for T, and asks the user to > >> sign it. > >> # The user confirms > >> # The UPoP(T) is signed by the wallet, creating PoP(T). > >> # The PoP is sent to the destination in 1.ii. > >> # The server receiving the PoP validates it and responds with “valid” or > >> “invalid”. > >> # The wallet displays the response in some way to the user. > >> > >> '''Remarks:''' > >> > >> * The method of transferring the PoP request at step 1 is not specified > >> here. Instead that is specified in separate specifications. See [btcpop > >> scheme BIP](btcpop scheme BIP). > >> * The nonce must be randomly generated by the server for every new PoP > >> request. > >> > >> === Validating a PoP === > >> > >> The server needs to validate the PoP and reply with "valid" or > "invalid". > >> That process is outlined below. If any step fails, the validation is > aborted > >> and "invalid" is returned: > >> > >> # Check the format of the PoP. It must pass normal transaction checks, > >> except that the inputs may already be spent. > >> # Check that lock_time is 499999999. > >> # Check that there is exactly one output. This output must have value 0 > >> and conform to the OP_RETURN output format outlined above. > >> # Check that the nonce is the same as the one requested. > >> # Check that the inputs of the PoP are exactly the same as in > transaction > >> T, except that the sequence numbers must all be 0. The ordering of the > >> inputs must also be the same as in T. > >> # Run the scripts of all the inputs. All scipts must return true. > >> # Check that the txid in the PoP output is the transaction you actually > >> want proof for. If you don’t know exactly what transaction you want > proof > >> for, check that the transaction actually pays for the product/service > you > >> deliver. > >> # Return "valid". > >> > >> == Security considerations == > >> > >> * Someone can intercept the PoP-request and change any parameter in it. > >> These can be mitigated by using secure connections. For example: > >> ** Pop destination - Stealing your PoP. > >> ** label - Trick you to sign an unintended pop or set a label that your > >> wallet doesn't have any record for, resulting in a broken service. > Always > >> check the PoP before signing. > >> ** nonce - Your pop will not validate on server. > >> * Someone can steal a PoP, for example by tampering with the PoP > request, > >> and try to use the service hoping to get a matching nonce. Probability > per > >> try: 1/(2^48). The server should have a mechanism for detecting a brute > >> force attack of this kind, or at least slow down the process by > delaying the > >> PoP request by some 100 ms or so. > >> * Even if a wallet has no funds it might still be valuable as a > generator > >> for PoPs. This makes it important to keep the security of the wallet > after > >> it has been emptied. > >> * Transaction malleability may cause the server to have another > >> transaction id for a payment than the client's wallet. In that case the > >> wallet will not be able to prove the transaction to the server. Wallets > >> should not rely on the transaction id of the outgoing transaction. > Instead > >> it should listen for the transaction on the network and put that in its > list > >> of transactions. > >> > >> == Reference implementation == > >> > >> [https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/poppoc poppoc on GitHub] > >> > >> [https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/wallet Mycelium fork on GitHub] > >> > >> == References == > >> > >> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0021.mediawiki > BIP0021]: > >> URI Scheme > >> > >> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0070.mediawiki > BIP0070]: > >> Payment Protocol > >> > >> [[btcpop scheme BIP]] > >> > >> ######################################################### > >> > >> 2015-06-06 23:25 GMT+02:00 Kalle Rosenbaum <ka...@rosenbaum.se>: > >> > Thank you all for the feedback. > >> > > >> > I will change the data structure as follows: > >> > > >> > * There will be only one output, the "pop output", and no outputs from > >> > T will be copied to the PoP. > >> > * The pop output will have value 0. > >> > * The sequence number of all inputs of the PoP will be set to 0. I > >> > chose to set it to 0 for all inputs for simplicity. > >> > * The lock_time of the PoP is always set to 499999999. > >> > > >> > Any comments on this? > >> > > >> > /Kalle > >> > > >> > 2015-06-06 19:00 GMT+02:00 Kalle Rosenbaum <ka...@rosenbaum.se>: > >> >> 2015-06-06 18:10 GMT+02:00 Tom Harding <t...@thinlink.com>: > >> >>> On Jun 6, 2015 8:05 AM, "Kalle Rosenbaum" <ka...@rosenbaum.se> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> I'm open to changes here. > >> >>> > >> >>> I suggest: > >> >>> > >> >>> - Don't include any real outputs. They are redundant because the > >> >>> txid is > >> >>> already referenced. > >> >> > >> >> with the nLocktime solution, the copied outputs are not needed. > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> - Start the proof script, which should be invalid, with a magic > >> >>> constant and > >> >>> include space for future expansion. This makes PoP's easy to > identify > >> >>> and > >> >>> extend. > >> >> > >> >> I did remore the constant (a "PoP" literal ascii encoded string) > >> >> because it didn't add much. The recipient will expect a pop, so it > >> >> will simply treat it as one. I did add a 2 byte version field to make > >> >> it extendable. > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> - "Proof of Potential" > >> >> > >> >> Noted :-) > >> >> > >> >> Thank you > >> >> /Kalle > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bitcoin-development mailing list > >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > >> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
