📅 Original date posted:2014-06-15
📝 Original message:Yes I meant only the "supports_instant" is not needed.
"trusted_instant_providers" makes sense to me.
Generally I like the simplicity of this BIP. Still, I have more questions:
What is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message
already contains a transactions field that could be signed. Can you
briefly describe the whole flow of messages on an example, including the
BIP70 messages?
Should we allow adding multiple signatures (from different instant
providers or maybe while transitioning to another PKI)?
On 06/15/2014 11:22 AM, Lawrence Nahum wrote:
> Andreas Schildbach <andreas <at> schildbach.de> writes:
>
>> Just a quick comment:
>>
>> The supports_instant field seems redundant to me. First, as per your
>> spec, you can derive it from trusted_instant_providers. And second, why
>> do you need it at all? Protobuf is designed so it will simply ignore
>> fields you don't know. So you can just send the instant_* fields in the
>> Payment message without harm.
>
>
>
> Agreed, supports_instant is redundant and can/should/will go.
>
> trusted_instant_providers on the other hand I think is needed.
>
> Sometimes the providers will charge fees for instant.
>
> While the software can ignore the fields,
> users may not want to pay for instant when the merchant may not accept it or
> care (even if it would not break the protocol it would still be a waste of
> fees)
>
> Does it make sense?
>
> Not all transactions from GreenAddress provide double spend protection, there
> are additional checks on prevout that are normally not done when spending
> normally, etc
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions
> Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
> Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.
> Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems
>
Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xg…adsv7
2023-06-07 15:22:40
in reply to nevent1q…00s8
Author Public Key
npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7Published at
2023-06-07 15:22:40Event JSON
{
"id": "ea99d847204346273b9a645b816c949e05b82af746119f0365213d9b20a6930a",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686151360,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed0eede28e160c2ef8ddd5af1ee3069fdb0eb5f4c939c1c09a1a5f338c30c628",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d73f45ef1dced41d79ef9e875393fc992b0aaf8e360f431a27d7ef513a56e277",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"01743d784a0a13a1222bf0ac66fbc96a0423e7977745bb36f5eb47f1fd757f26"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-15\n📝 Original message:Yes I meant only the \"supports_instant\" is not needed.\n\"trusted_instant_providers\" makes sense to me.\n\nGenerally I like the simplicity of this BIP. Still, I have more questions:\n\nWhat is the use of the Transactions message? Note the Payment message\nalready contains a transactions field that could be signed. Can you\nbriefly describe the whole flow of messages on an example, including the\nBIP70 messages?\n\nShould we allow adding multiple signatures (from different instant\nproviders or maybe while transitioning to another PKI)?\n\n\nOn 06/15/2014 11:22 AM, Lawrence Nahum wrote:\n\u003e Andreas Schildbach \u003candreas \u003cat\u003e schildbach.de\u003e writes:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Just a quick comment:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The supports_instant field seems redundant to me. First, as per your\n\u003e\u003e spec, you can derive it from trusted_instant_providers. And second, why\n\u003e\u003e do you need it at all? Protobuf is designed so it will simply ignore\n\u003e\u003e fields you don't know. So you can just send the instant_* fields in the\n\u003e\u003e Payment message without harm.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Agreed, supports_instant is redundant and can/should/will go.\n\u003e \n\u003e trusted_instant_providers on the other hand I think is needed.\n\u003e \n\u003e Sometimes the providers will charge fees for instant.\n\u003e \n\u003e While the software can ignore the fields, \n\u003e users may not want to pay for instant when the merchant may not accept it or \n\u003e care (even if it would not break the protocol it would still be a waste of \n\u003e fees)\n\u003e \n\u003e Does it make sense? \n\u003e \n\u003e Not all transactions from GreenAddress provide double spend protection, there \n\u003e are additional checks on prevout that are normally not done when spending \n\u003e normally, etc\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions\n\u003e Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems\n\u003e Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.\n\u003e Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing \u0026 Easy Data Exploration\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems\n\u003e",
"sig": "0db0405958229f8d40fd5a3b9a0de4246f1c83b1d984e2c0aa98e3f80156b6be3841530affd9b90e6594b29d377e94e7a167ce79517ebb31a4807bb6f21a790a"
}