📅 Original date posted:2017-09-28
📝 Original message:On Thursday 28 September 2017 2:13:48 PM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
> >> expiration time.
> >
> > The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly
> > requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it on an
> > invoice is much easier, so I would expect people to keep doing that.
>
> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is
> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts
> as the invoice.
>
> Even more problematic, if you were to include an expiry date in a
> BIP-173 address and put that into a payment request, wallets wouldn't be
> allowed to parse that expiry date from the script without violating the
> BIP70 spec.
Payment requests don't use and don't overlap with addresses. Maybe you could
have an argument for serialising BIP70 payment requests in Bech32 as the new
address format itself, but it doesn't make sense to talk about putting a
Bech32 address *into* a payment request...
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:06:26
in reply to nevent1q…ektf
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 18:06:26Event JSON
{
"id": "18670721fa763220783b4ed4855d61314fe38423dab6d2395b795f7d93798712",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686161186,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"02d8c76b933e43bf4fbef62deb34ae55389c59e653682f6f8847f8910b9dcb32",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"861e4705197cbbaf336e327e2a0c06649a032c8779e5d2714ab89c8a4a1e4310",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e1ad0d0d83103f222425541294008149d215c1e1629b0bb37b98e19f698feb3e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-09-28\n📝 Original message:On Thursday 28 September 2017 2:13:48 PM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an\n\u003e \u003e\u003e expiration time.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly\n\u003e \u003e requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it on an\n\u003e \u003e invoice is much easier, so I would expect people to keep doing that.\n\u003e \n\u003e The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is\n\u003e already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts\n\u003e as the invoice.\n\u003e \n\u003e Even more problematic, if you were to include an expiry date in a\n\u003e BIP-173 address and put that into a payment request, wallets wouldn't be\n\u003e allowed to parse that expiry date from the script without violating the\n\u003e BIP70 spec.\n\nPayment requests don't use and don't overlap with addresses. Maybe you could \nhave an argument for serialising BIP70 payment requests in Bech32 as the new \naddress format itself, but it doesn't make sense to talk about putting a \nBech32 address *into* a payment request...\n\nLuke",
"sig": "db097f7ad17c4b6dc932af6c2220a386ab937adc713b8fca22fab87ce8d0db53cbdda5f234c59d7738d1ebcc9d323801b97640f0eda089b8c3259e64c603a39e"
}