Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-04-14 📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-04-14
📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>> So, to be specific... a A->B chain of transactions, that collectively
>> meet the network's fee requirements?
>
> Yes.
ACK on the concept
>> Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like
>> democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a
>> better system :)
>
> I think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I
> favor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the
> broadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being
> broadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and
> sender. The block chain is an optional service after all.
Agreed. A TX is just a signed message. No reason why it -must- use
mainnet's distributed notary service.
>> Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the
>> merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the
>> part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned
>
> Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design
> did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi
> in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way
> to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup
> for when the recipient was offline.
>
> In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could
> easily swing back the other way.
IIRC pay-to-IP was removed because it was unreliable -and- detrimental
to privacy? ISTR Satoshi specifically disliking the privacy elements
of p2ip.
But I also have a "gut feeling" that these sorts of payments and
direct communication should be done via a wholly separate protocol
than the bitcoin P2P protocol. Doing p2ip as it was done originally,
inside the bitcoin P2P protocol, was a mistake. Extensible as it is,
I think a better job -- and faster evolution -- can be done with a
separate protocol on a separate port.
Some HTTP derivative would probably make life easier for mobile
payments and firewalled scenarios, and for client->merchant
communications, for instance.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
Published at
2023-06-07 10:04:20Event JSON
{
"id": "74d5a7fa67ef69d7063db157093abffe9b74b6818a348ee9c4208ea410c6eef9",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686132260,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f0cc6578a9ca4b7b0857c070ede1826db3227f161e70524c04566da5c5a56a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f290b274e9a1a28e5c37dca9b7c21a7c109498da6112fee45e18c322677a721f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-04-14\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e So, to be specific... a A-\u003eB chain of transactions, that collectively\n\u003e\u003e meet the network's fee requirements?\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes.\n\nACK on the concept\n\n\u003e\u003e Ideally the fee, if any, is market based and negotiated. Problem is... like\n\u003e\u003e democracy, no matter how ugly it is, people have trouble finding a\n\u003e\u003e better system :)\n\u003e\n\u003e I think this is something we can explore over the coming years. I\n\u003e favor having people commonly pass transactions around outside the\n\u003e broadcast network with the transactions and their dependencies being\n\u003e broadcast only when there's a lack of trust between recipient and\n\u003e sender. The block chain is an optional service after all.\n\nAgreed. A TX is just a signed message. No reason why it -must- use\nmainnet's distributed notary service.\n\n\u003e\u003e Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the\n\u003e\u003e merchant -- involve far more direct payee\u003c-\u003epayer communication on the\n\u003e\u003e part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design\n\u003e did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi\n\u003e in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way\n\u003e to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup\n\u003e for when the recipient was offline.\n\u003e\n\u003e In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could\n\u003e easily swing back the other way.\n\nIIRC pay-to-IP was removed because it was unreliable -and- detrimental\nto privacy? ISTR Satoshi specifically disliking the privacy elements\nof p2ip.\n\nBut I also have a \"gut feeling\" that these sorts of payments and\ndirect communication should be done via a wholly separate protocol\nthan the bitcoin P2P protocol. Doing p2ip as it was done originally,\ninside the bitcoin P2P protocol, was a mistake. Extensible as it is,\nI think a better job -- and faster evolution -- can be done with a\nseparate protocol on a separate port.\n\nSome HTTP derivative would probably make life easier for mobile\npayments and firewalled scenarios, and for client-\u003emerchant\ncommunications, for instance.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com",
"sig": "28a6db8c79f5bdf551b52e261707958813e0e8d85f682b903dd3c71cca35718f6f3c93d0e0294fb7a43dfb6b96ddc683a4c27d407e5be8b805d05b1fc6a2952d"
}