📅 Original date posted:2014-07-15
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are major gaps that the payment protocol doesn't cover.
>
> There are several deployed use cases where you are provided/request an
> address, an API provides one, and one or more incoming payments arrive
> as the user sends them over minutes/hours/days/weeks.
Couldn't these services return a payment message instead of an address?
I agree that there is currently an UI issue here: there is no way in
current wallets to store a payment message and pay to it later. We
will need something like that for recurring payments as well.
Bitcoin addresses were never designed with extensibility in mind.
Before the payment protocol there have been lots of ideas to add
functionality to them, but the underlying idea that they have to be
handled by users manually means that they have to be as short as
possible, which is a conflicting aim with extensibility...
Wladimir
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:23:45
in reply to nevent1q…wdgk
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:23:45Event JSON
{
"id": "e5d7211b271a311aea14919d0a14a6e48da0ff3043894a8042c9f64106843fc6",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151425,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c416f9edc434ad4fb178719e3efb3841727055ec78e6e9e7893a679de1fc1e84",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"85afe2b297b0ef56ed9669b013227a67ad937f5dc0fd789274ba479feb353670",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7e57666cff7c86f9410d33d4d34ef3e5105395b3c74af472541dbeeb743f9de3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-07-15\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e There are major gaps that the payment protocol doesn't cover.\n\u003e\n\u003e There are several deployed use cases where you are provided/request an\n\u003e address, an API provides one, and one or more incoming payments arrive\n\u003e as the user sends them over minutes/hours/days/weeks.\n\nCouldn't these services return a payment message instead of an address?\n\nI agree that there is currently an UI issue here: there is no way in\ncurrent wallets to store a payment message and pay to it later. We\nwill need something like that for recurring payments as well.\n\nBitcoin addresses were never designed with extensibility in mind.\nBefore the payment protocol there have been lots of ideas to add\nfunctionality to them, but the underlying idea that they have to be\nhandled by users manually means that they have to be as short as\npossible, which is a conflicting aim with extensibility...\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "5a699691ef8bef429fac13a83c5b98d7c40ec583dc19f081936c2dd296a3c92b0dc7d34ef920e642b1de8819c1cca3e25e5782ccdc25c3134836da13c85ce69e"
}