Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-30 Thread Mike Hearn
That would definitely be a new BIP. But firstly it'd make sense to implement it and make sure that the payment processors intend to use it. Like I said, I wasn't very successful so far in getting them to make useful memo fields. I'm hoping that once wallets start actually recording and displaying

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-30 Thread Mark van Cuijk
On 28 Jul 2014, at 15:32 , Mike Hearn wrote: > So what now? To be honest my next priority with BIP70 was to formalise the > extensions process, I've been dragging my feet over that because I'm working > on other things. And then after that to knock some heads together over at > BitPay/Coinbase

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Hearn
> > I referred to your idea in > https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html > > which > is indeed not the proposal itself. > Right, gotcha. Had forgotten about that.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mark van Cuijk
On 28 Jul 2014, at 14:46 , Mike Hearn wrote: > I do like the idea coined by Mike that a PP can issue non-SSL certificates > for the purpose of merchant identification, as long as a customer is free to > determine whether he trusts the PP for this purpose. > > I don't think I proposed this exac

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Hearn
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mark van Cuijk wrote: > Good to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been > postponed. > I'm not sure postponed is the right word. It wasn't in v1, but many useful things weren't. It's more like, a bunch of people have to do work to upgrade thi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mark van Cuijk
Good to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been postponed. I agree our proposals don’t differ substantially. Besides naming, I think the differences are the algorithms that are used for signing the extended certificate / mandate by the merchant and the way backwards compatibi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-27 Thread Mike Hearn
Hi Mark, This is very similar to a proposal I made some time ago: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04053.html I think the outlines of a design are clear - my proposal and yours don't I think differ substantially. Someone needs to make it happen though.

[Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-26 Thread Mark van Cuijk
When I asked a non-tech friend to do a BIP 70 payment using our wallet as a first round of user experience testing, he made the remark the he wanted to do a payment to a merchant, but instead our software shows a payment to “BitPay, Inc.” This can be problematic for a couple of reasons: - As a