Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-07 Thread Mike Hearn
OK. I want to keep the signature field required, though, so how about: signature: digital signature over a protocol buffer serialized variation of the SignedPaymentRequest message where signature is a zero-byte array and fields are serialized in numerical order (all current protocol buffer

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-07 Thread Mike Hearn
Yet more comments (I guess at some point we need to stick a fork in it - or at least move on to implementing a prototype version). Maybe don't require the payment URI to be HTTPS. If you want to pay a Tor hidden service then HTTPS just adds unnecessary complexity. Just recommend to merchants that

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-07 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Yet more comments (I guess at some point we need to stick a fork in it - or at least move on to implementing a prototype version). Yes, my next step is prototyping. Note that this is not a BIP yet: I want to have a working

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal: Invoices/Payments/Receipts

2012-12-07 Thread Mike Hearn
yeah... I had similar thoughts on what to do if some Outputs specify an amount and others don't. I'm still waffling on whether or not I like allowing repeated Outputs; a single Output would make the spec a fair bit simpler Yes, but at the cost of privacy. Generators of payment requests always