📅 Original date posted:2014-07-28
📝 Original message:>
> I referred to your idea in
> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html>; which
> is indeed not the proposal itself.
>
Right, gotcha. Had forgotten about that.
Indeed there is another signature, which is to authenticate the payment
> delegation. If you take it into account in the signature count, then your
> proposal has three signatures.
>
Yes, I see now, you are right. A mandate type system is probably simpler
indeed.
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 and get them to put useful text in the memo field
instead of random numbers. Baby steps ....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140728/dbcdf1d6/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:24:27
in reply to nevent1q…swx8
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:24:27Event JSON
{
"id": "104728dc02e958f77cc44da4b8b6e9f21080cc668b3ba923d1bd59181ac9150c",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151467,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a3583fd779ae01bcb2bc77268993e943631589c36653a53f89e3320d68ba00ed",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4c792018838aae7d8b78c83843249d6a1f2555f617ea53ea03e15c1819a744b3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"8fd2b087c87885a0caec95c00fdbb48e63439b0bb5715488745108e5d300bd98"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-07-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e I referred to your idea in\n\u003e https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html\n\u003e \u003chttps://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html\u003e which\n\u003e is indeed not the proposal itself.\n\u003e\n\nRight, gotcha. Had forgotten about that.\n\nIndeed there is another signature, which is to authenticate the payment\n\u003e delegation. If you take it into account in the signature count, then your\n\u003e proposal has three signatures.\n\u003e\n\nYes, I see now, you are right. A mandate type system is probably simpler\nindeed.\n\nSo what now? To be honest my next priority with BIP70 was to formalise the\nextensions process, I've been dragging my feet over that because I'm\nworking on other things. And then after that to knock some heads together\nover at BitPay/Coinbase and get them to put useful text in the memo field\ninstead of random numbers. Baby steps ....\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140728/dbcdf1d6/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "9109fd4a2929e16c34c5770c54c04721aaadf695e146d6d0abf44207b015a5840fcde01d7e70d1beba152cd5734426ea36c80ec65cbad13b3cdcdf6816239b9a"
}