Nostr notes by

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16 📝 Original message:Just ...

2023-06-07T15:38:06Z

In reply to nevent1q…f5fl
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16
📝 Original message:Just thinking off the top of my head here:

What if SPV wallets were exempt from the fee? Only full nodes would pay
other full nodes when initially sync'ing the blockchain. Then as long as
you keep your full node running for a long period of time, you'll
eventually make back the cost you paid to sync initially. This at least
incentives full node operators to keep their node running for as long as
possible once started.

This still imposes a worse UX on casual users who want full node security,
but don't want to run a server 24/7 (or perhaps simply aren't aware that
they have to). These users will watch their balance wither away each time
they open their wallet, but it would be very difficult to explain to them
why that is happening. It would just be frustrating and confusing.

Also, what happens when a user runs Bitcoin-QT for the first time after
downloading it to try it out? They wouldn't be able to sync the blockchain.
Even if the wallet has a balance, how would the wallet be able to see that
it has UTXO's without the ability to sync with the network for free?

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
>> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
>> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to
>> see
>> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
>> would
>> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to
>> pay
>> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
>> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
>> with
>> > the network.
>> >
>> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have
>> to
>> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
>> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>> >
>> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
>> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me
>> :/
>>
>> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>>
>
> Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
>
>>
>> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able
>> to
>> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/6dfa5428/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16 📝 Original message:On ...

2023-06-07T15:38:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…p2xd
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to see
> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
> would
> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to pay
> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
> with
> > the network.
> >
> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have
> to
> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
> >
> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me :/
>
> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>

Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is
the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in
a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
wallets a little more confusing and annoying.

>
> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able to
> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/08c20ffe/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16 📝 Original message:Would ...

2023-06-07T15:38:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…3chs
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16
📝 Original message:Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to see
your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It would
also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to pay
for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync with
the network.

Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have to
pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.

So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me :/

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:12 PM, sickpig at gmail.com <sickpig at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Raystonn
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am only partially through the content at the below link, and I am very
> impressed. Has Justus Ranvier began work on implementation of the ideas
> contained therein?
>
> I don't know if he or someone else has begun writing code to implement
> what was described in the liked post, but I'm sure he will reply to
> you since he's subscribed to this mailing list.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > From: sickpig at gmail.com
> > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:18 PM
> > To: Raystonn .
> > Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
> >
> >
> > Sorry for top posting and the brevity but I'm typing from my phone
> >
> > You shoud be interested in this post by Justus Ranvier then:
> >
> >
> https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2015 8:57 PM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here
> >> before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it
> >> sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin
> >> Network in the long term.
> >>
> >> - Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes,
> wallets,
> >> and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be
> based
> >> on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but
> can be
> >> set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market.
> >> - Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as
> >> those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send
> >> payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no
> payments
> >> from other nodes, wallets, and other services.
> >> - Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network
> will
> >> tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards
> to
> >> other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there.
> But
> >> they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other
> services.
> >>
> >> The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by
> those
> >> who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full
> >> node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network
> >> which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still
> >> possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is
> >> nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable
> >> long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only
> >> what is required to keep the Network operational.
> >>
> >> Raystonn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/3915b397/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26 📝 Original message:This ...

2023-06-07T15:35:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…qhnh
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26
📝 Original message:This is true, but the device doesn't know if the LAN it's on is a safe
network or a hotel wifi, for example. So there would be a tricky UX there.
You'd have to ask the user during set up if this is a trusted LAN or not;
or something like that. That may not be an issue though depending on the
nature of the product. For example, Chromecast doesn't need any security
protections against trolls on the same LAN. I guess it just depends on what
you're planning to build.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:

> Who would be performing a Sybil attack against themselves? We're talking
> about a LAN here. All the nodes would be under the control of the same
> entity. In that case, you actually want them all connecting solely to a
> central hub node on the LAN, and the hub node should connect to "diverse
> and unpredictable" other nodes on the Bitcoin network.
>
>
> On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 9:46 pm, Kevin Greene wrote:
> > This is something you actually don't want. In order to make it as
> difficult
> > as possible for an attacker to perform a sybil attack, you want to
> choose a
> > set of peers that is as diverse, and unpredictable as possible.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is very simple to do. Just ping the "all nodes" address (ff02::1)
> and
> > > try connecting to TCP port 8333 of each node that responds. Shouldn't
> take
> > > but more than a few milliseconds on any but the most densely populated
> LANs.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:06 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
> > > > Is there any work being done on using some kind of zero-conf service
> > > > discovery protocol so that lightweight clients can find a full node
> on
> > > the
> > > > same LAN to peer with rather than having to tie up WAN bandwidth?
> > > >
> > > > I envision a future where lightweight devices within a home use SPV
> over
> > > > WiFi to connect with a home server which in turn relays the
> transactions
> > > > they create out to the larger and faster relays on the Internet.
> > > >
> > > > In a situation where there are hundreds or thousands of small SPV
> devices
> > > > in a single home (if 21, Inc. is successful) monitoring the
> blockchain,
> > > > this could result in lower traffic across the slow WAN connection.
> And
> > > > yes, I realize it could potentially take a LOT of these devices
> before
> > > the
> > > > total bandwidth is greater than downloading a full copy of the
> > > blockchain,
> > > > but there's other reasons to host your own full node -- trust being
> one.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *James G. Phillips IV*
> > > > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>;
> > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>;
> > > >
> > > > *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of
> > > immortals."
> > > > -- David Ogilvy*
> > > >
> > > > *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
> > > twice
> > > > before printing.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > One dashboard for servers and applications across
> Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> > > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> > > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable
> Insights
> > > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150525/05bd344b/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26 📝 Original message:This ...

2023-06-07T15:35:35Z

In reply to nevent1q…g2d4
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26
📝 Original message:This is something you actually don't want. In order to make it as difficult
as possible for an attacker to perform a sybil attack, you want to choose a
set of peers that is as diverse, and unpredictable as possible.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:

> This is very simple to do. Just ping the "all nodes" address (ff02::1) and
> try connecting to TCP port 8333 of each node that responds. Shouldn't take
> but more than a few milliseconds on any but the most densely populated LANs.
>
>
> On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:06 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
> > Is there any work being done on using some kind of zero-conf service
> > discovery protocol so that lightweight clients can find a full node on
> the
> > same LAN to peer with rather than having to tie up WAN bandwidth?
> >
> > I envision a future where lightweight devices within a home use SPV over
> > WiFi to connect with a home server which in turn relays the transactions
> > they create out to the larger and faster relays on the Internet.
> >
> > In a situation where there are hundreds or thousands of small SPV devices
> > in a single home (if 21, Inc. is successful) monitoring the blockchain,
> > this could result in lower traffic across the slow WAN connection. And
> > yes, I realize it could potentially take a LOT of these devices before
> the
> > total bandwidth is greater than downloading a full copy of the
> blockchain,
> > but there's other reasons to host your own full node -- trust being one.
> >
> > --
> > *James G. Phillips IV*
> > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>;
> > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>;
> >
> > *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of
> immortals."
> > -- David Ogilvy*
> >
> > *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
> twice
> > before printing.*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150525/1324d033/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2015-03-05 📝 Original ...

2023-06-07T15:31:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…8nrs
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2015-03-05
📝 Original message:Bitcoind protects against this by storing the addresses it has learned
about in buckets. The bucket an address is stored in is chosen based on the
IP of the peer that advertised the addr message, and the address in the
addr message itself. The idea is that the bucketing is done in a randomized
way so that no attacker should be able to fill your database with his or
her own nodes.

>From addrman.h
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.h>;:

/** Stochastic address manager
*
* Design goals:
* * Keep the address tables in-memory, and asynchronously dump the entire
to able in peers.dat.
* * Make sure no (localized) attacker can fill the entire table with his
nodes/addresses.
*
* To that end:
* * Addresses are organized into buckets.
* * Address that have not yet been tried go into 256 "new" buckets.
* * Based on the address range (/16 for IPv4) of source of the
information, 32 buckets are selected at random
* * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the range
the address itself is located.
* * One single address can occur in up to 4 different buckets, to
increase selection chances for addresses that
* are seen frequently. The chance for increasing this multiplicity
decreases exponentially.
* * When adding a new address to a full bucket, a randomly chosen
entry (with a bias favoring less recently seen
* ones) is removed from it first.
* * Addresses of nodes that are known to be accessible go into 64
"tried" buckets.
* * Each address range selects at random 4 of these buckets.
* * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the full
address.
* * When adding a new good address to a full bucket, a randomly
chosen entry (with a bias favoring less recently
* tried ones) is evicted from it, back to the "new" buckets.
* * Bucket selection is based on cryptographic hashing, using a
randomly-generated 256-bit key, which should not
* be observable by adversaries.
* * Several indexes are kept for high performance. Defining
DEBUG_ADDRMAN will introduce frequent (and expensive)
* consistency checks for the entire data structure.
*/

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Thy Shizzle <thashiznets at yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

> Hi, so just a thought as my node relays addresses etc. If I wanted to
> really slow down communication over the P2P network, what's stopping me
> from popping up a heap of dummy nodes that do nothing more than exchange
> version and relay addresses, except I send addr messages with all 1000
> addresses pointing to my useless nodes that never send invs or respond to
> getdata etc so clients connect to my dumb nodes instead of legit ones. I'm
> thinking that if I fill up their address pool with enough addresses to dumb
> nodes and keep them really fresh time wise, it could have a bit of an
> impact especially if all 8 outbound connections are used up by my dumb
> nodes right?
>
> I don't want to do this obviously, I'm just thinking about it as I'm
> building my node, what is there to stop this happening?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for
> all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs
> to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150304/536a50fe/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12 📝 Original ...

2023-06-07T15:13:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…8a8l
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12
📝 Original message:Sending this again and truncating since apparently the message body was too
long.

Thanks for humoring my questions!

>I think reporting such errors to the wallet would make complete sense.
However i am not clear why we would a separate url for that?

Hmm, thinking about this more, adding a simple status_code in
PaymentRequest would be a much easier way to achieve this. However,
continuing to think about this even more, maybe the simple memo field along
with an empty set of outputs is enough already.

In bitcoinj, right now the code will throw a
PaymentRequestException.InvalidOutputs exception if the set of outputs is
empty with a message of "No Outputs". Because of that, there isn't a good
way to tell the difference between a payment request that had no outputs
and a payment request that had some invalid output(s).

*Question to everyone:*
How does bitcoin-qt handle a PaymentRequest with no outputs?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140211/e0972311/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12 📝 Original message:Thanks ...

2023-06-07T15:13:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…mxjl
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2014-02-12
📝 Original message:Thanks for humoring my questions!

>I think reporting such errors to the wallet would make complete sense.
However i am not clear why we would a separate url for that?

Hmm, thinking about this more, adding a simple status_code in
PaymentRequest would be a much easier way to achieve this. However,
continuing to think about this even more, maybe the simple memo field along
with an empty set of outputs is enough already.

In bitcoinj, right now the code will throw a
PaymentRequestException.InvalidOutputs exception if the set of outputs is
empty with a message of "No Outputs". There isn't a good way to tell the
difference between a payment request that had no outputs and a payment
request that had some invalid output(s).

*Question to everyone:*
How does bitcoin-qt handle a PaymentRequest with no outputs?

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Stephane Brossier
<stephane at kill-bill.org>wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:00 AM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Figured I would have a crack at reviewing this since Mike is out for a
> bit. It was great running into you guys at the bitcoin fair in SF! Small
> world :)
>
>
> Indeed! It was great meeting you! It's always nice to meet people in
> person...
>
> I like how simple this is. You just give it an url to fetch the next
> payment request and a date to fetch it.
>
> What should happen if the client tries to fetch the PaymentRequest early
> or late?
>
>
> If the client tries to fetch too early, then the merchant will return a
> PaymentRequest with no output (there is nothing to pay yet). If it fetches
> too late, this is merchant specific. It could be that the service got
> discontinued -- extreme case -- or that there are now multiple
> PaymentRequest pending or that the merchant decided to aggregate those into
> one. In that scenario, it could lead to a case where the amount to pay goes
> beyond the contract and the wallet would refuse to make the recurring
> payment.
>
> Does it become valid after some date and stay valid for some length of
> time?
>
>
> The protocol we sketched does not include (yet) an expiration date. At
> this point the contract is fairly minimal, and we could envision adding
> more parameters such as expiration date. So at this point the behavior
> would be dictated by the merchant.
>
> Also, what should happen if the client tries to consume the same
> PaymentRequest twice (or multiple times) during the same period?
>
>
> The merchant initiates the PaymentRequest and is in charge to make sure
> they match the invoices that the client should pay. On the client side, the
> wallet is responsible to verify that the contract is respected, so if a
> merchant were to issue multiple times the same PaymentRequest, the wallet
> would detect it goes beyond the bonds defined in the contract and would
> refuse to make the additional Payments.
>
> I do not think daily/weekly/monthly is flexible enough. What do you think
> about having a concrete start time and end time when the next
> PaymentRequest will be valid?
>
>
> I agree that daily/weekly/monthly may not be flexible enough. However
> specifying a fixed date may be very tricky because in some cases a monthly
> subscription may start on a 31st of a month, and depending on the month,
> the due date will vary -- could be 30th, 28th, 29th, ... Also note that the
> frequency (daily/weekly/monthly) is not used as a polling interval, but is
> only used to verify the contract is respected.
>
> There are multiple viable options to specify that contract and ideally we
> could/should support multiple schemes; different merchants could use
> different schemes, and the client would decide wether or not he is ready to
> accept the terms that will later be enforced by the wallet. But of course
> all this flexibility goes against simplicity and so this is tradeoff...
>
>
> This also prevents the wallet from having to remember when it last sent a
> payment and getting skewed over time.
>
>
> Today, our current prototype is polling every day -- which is the lowest
> granularity we introduced -- and so there is no risk of getting skewed.
>
>
> When a wallet hits the polling_url to download the next PaymentRequest, it
> seems we need a way to communicate an error code to the wallet, for example
> if the server canceled the contract without the wallet knowing. Perhaps a
> separate polling_status_url, with a corresponding ACK message to indicate
> if the PaymentRequest is available. What do you think of that idea?
>
>
> I think reporting such errors to the wallet would make complete sense.
> However i am not clear why we would a separate url for that?
>
> One high-level comment -- the wallet in this design doesn't have any way
> of knowing when the payments are supposed to end. I feel this is important
> to show to the user before they start their wallet polling infinitely.
>
>
> Subscriptions are non ending by definition, but at any time the client
> (through the wallet) or the merchant can decide to terminate the
> subscriptions -- we did not yet implement cancellation in that prototype
> but we are planning to add it later this week. Think of your Netflix
> subscriptions, this is never ending (evergreen) until you decide to
> terminate it or Netflix does it (abuse, bills not paid,...)
>
> Thanks for taking a look!
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Stephane Brossier <stephane at kill-bill.org>wrote:
>
>> Mike, Gavin,
>>
>>
>> We started to work on the merchant side to test the integration of our
>> prototype for the recurring payments. We modified the 'Payment Request
>> Generator' from Gavin to include a new check box 'set recurring'. We forked
>> the code and checked in our modification here:
>> https://github.com/killbill/paymentrequest/commit/e530f6ec528266aacfd076d7c3154ad39267c3f3
>>
>> We also found a few issues with the code diff that we sent yesterday for
>> bitcoinj and checked in the bug fixes in our fork-- so the diff sent
>> yesterday is slightly outdated.
>>
>> So at this point we have a working prototype for bitcoinj and we are
>> waiting for your feedbacks. We also started to look at integrating the
>> protocol in Kill Bill to check that what is proposed supports indeed the
>> business cases of a full recurring billing platform.
>>
>> Hope to hear from you guys soon!
>>
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Stephane Brossier <stephane at kill-bill.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Mike and all,
>>
>> Pierre and I just committed a prototype implementation of the recurring
>> payment protocol using bitcoinj. You can find the diff on our fork:
>>
>> https://github.com/killbill/bitcoinj/commit/40c657c4191498f12539c60316116aa68af368a7
>>
>> We did not write the server (merchant side), but wanted to have some
>> feedback before going deeper (merchant implementation and tests). We did
>> our best to build it on top of the existing BIP-0070 protocol-- only a few
>> additions in the messages, but no new calls and no new uri scheme. We
>> created a new package 'recurring' where most of the new code lives.
>>
>> At a high level:
>>
>> 1. Creation of the subscription:
>>
>> The initial handshake for creating the subscription is exactly similar to
>> the one for the payment protocol (PaymentRequest is used to provide the
>> contract)
>>
>> 2. Wallet can decide to poll the merchants for its active subscriptions.
>>
>> Here the flow is exactly similar to the payment protocol but the wallet
>> receives a callback to verify the payment matches the contract and should
>> go through.
>>
>> Please give us some feedback whenever you have the chance. In the
>> meantime we will start implementing the merchant side and test the code.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>>
>> That looks OK at a very high level. Things you probably want to think
>> about:
>>
>> - How to trigger it off the existing payment protocol (no new top
>> level messages or mime types or uri extensions please)
>> - Data structures to define the payment schedule
>> - Do you allow pre-submission of time locked transactions or not?
>>
>> I think as you prototype these things will become clearer. You could try
>> prototyping either in Bitcoin Core (C++) or bitcoinj (java, look at the
>> PaymentSession class).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Stephane Brossier <
>> stephane at kill-bill.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From what I have seen so far, there seems to be an agreement that this
>>> is a nice feature to add. We are pretty new to that community and so we
>>> don't know exactly what the process is, and in particular how we reach
>>> consensus via email. I am certainly open to follow 'the way' if there is
>>> one, but one solution would be to follow Mike's suggestion on providing a
>>> (prototype) implementation first and then defining/refining the BIP. Odinn
>>> also suggested a possible retribution for our time through crowd-sourcing
>>> which I am interested to pursue if that makes sense. We have quite some
>>> experience on the subscription side of things and while we are growing our
>>> knowledge on the Bitcoin technology (and ecosystem at large) we would
>>> benefit from: * some feedbacks on the high level proposal * additional
>>> requirements we might have missed So, below is a high level description of
>>> what we have in mind. If this sounds reasonable, we could start working on
>>> an implementation. I. Abstract --------------- This describes a protocol to
>>> enable recurring payments in bitcoins and can be seen as an extension of
>>> BIP-0070. The main goal here is to have the customer subscribe to a service
>>> of some kind (that is, agreeing on the terms of that subscription
>>> contract), and then have the wallet make recurring payments without any
>>> intervention from the customer as long as the payments match what the
>>> customer agreed on paying. An example of such service would be an online
>>> streaming website, to which a user pays a fixed recurring monthly fee to
>>> access videos (a.k.a. resources). Note that there is also usage based
>>> billing: for example, the user may need to purchase additional access for
>>> premium videos (overage charges). This type of billing is more complicated
>>> and there are many variations to it used in the industry (pre-paid, ...). For
>>> the sake of discussion, we'll focus on fixed recurring payments only, but
>>> we will keep usage in mind to make sure the protocol will be able to
>>> support it as well. II. Motivation ------------------ Subscription based
>>> services have been growing in the past few years and so the intent it to
>>> make it possible for customers to pay in bitcoins. Bitcoin's push model
>>> presents new advantages for the customer compared to traditional payment
>>> methods: the user has control over the subscription (for example, there is
>>> no need to call the merchant to explicitly cancel the credit card
>>> payments). It also opens the door to subscription management tools in
>>> wallets (e.g. Hive apps), which would give user an overview of what they
>>> are paying each month. III. Flow of
>>> Operations----------------------------------------*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Creation of the subscription: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> - - 1. The customer clicks 'subscribe' -> A message is sent to the
>>> merchant. 2. The merchant sends back a message to the wallet with the
>>> details of the subscription such as the amount to be paid. In reality,
>>> there will be more information but for the purpose of the prototype
>>> implementation this is sufficient. 3. The wallet prompts the customer for
>>> authorization. 4. The customer authorizes (or denies) it. 5. The wallet
>>> sends the confirmation to the merchant. 6. The merchant confirms the
>>> subscription was created. Ongoing payments: *
>>>
>>> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * From that time on and since Bitcoin is a 'push' model, the wallet is
>>> responsible to poll the merchant for due payments associated with that
>>> subscription. Note that the merchant could specify hints to the wallet on
>>> when to poll (specific dates) or not during the registration of the
>>> subscription. Note that we can't simply have the wallet push X bitcoins
>>> every month: the user account on the merchant side may have gotten credits,
>>> invoice adjustments, etc. since the last invoice, so the amount to pay for
>>> a given billing period may be lower than the regular amount. It could even
>>> be zero if the user decides to make a one-time payment to the merchant
>>> directly using a different wallet. Hence, the wallet needs to get the
>>> latest invoice balance to make sure how much it should pay. This also opens
>>> the door for the support of overage charges. Quick note on the
>>> implementation on the merchant side: an entitlement system is a piece of
>>> logic on the merchant side which grants the user access to certain
>>> resources depending on the account status (unpaid invoices, etc.). This
>>> goes often hand in hand with a dunning system, which progressively
>>> restricts access as the user's account is more and more overdue. Since
>>> wallets can be offline for an extended period of time, payments may be
>>> missed and lead to an overdue state (e.g. extra fees, service degraded). It
>>> is the responsibility of the customer to ensure the wallet is up often
>>> enough for payments to happen. In that recurring phase where the wallet
>>> polls the merchant, the wallet is responsible to check that payments match
>>> the subscription contract; that is, the amount, frequency of payments, ...
>>> match what the customer agreed on. If so, the payment is made without
>>> asking for explicit approval from customer, and the flow is similar to
>>> BIP-0070: The message is sent to the merchant, and in parallel, a
>>> transaction is sent to the btcnet. The merchant sends an ACK to the wallet
>>> and of course checks the states of the transactions on the btcnet to mark
>>> that payment as successful. Subscription change (optional): *
>>>
>>> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>>>
>>>
>>> * Optionally we could implement a change in the ongoing subscription to
>>> address the upgrade/downgrade scenarios. Of course, we could also simply
>>> support a cancellation followed by a creation of a new subscription, but
>>> having that as a one atomic message is probably better. The steps are very
>>> similar to the initial registration. 1. The customer clicks 'upgrade',
>>> 'downgrade', ... -> A msg is sent to the merchant. 2. The merchant sends back
>>> a msg to the wallet with the detail of the NEW subscription. 3. The wallet
>>> prompts the customer for authorization. 4. The customer authorizes (or
>>> denies) it. 5. The wallet sends the confirmation to the merchant. 6. The
>>> merchant confirms the change in the subscription. Cancellation of the
>>> subscription: *
>>>
>>> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * The cancellation is initiated from the customer: 1. The customer
>>> clicks 'cancel' -> The wallet is informed that it should not accept any
>>> new payment associated to that subscription. 2. The wallet sends a message
>>> to the merchant to inform about the cancellation. 3. The merchant confirms
>>> the subscription was cancelled. *
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140211/2b958bf7/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2014-02-11 📝 Original ...

2023-06-07T15:13:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…wd0c
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2014-02-11
📝 Original message:Figured I would have a crack at reviewing this since Mike is out for a bit.
It was great running into you guys at the bitcoin fair in SF! Small world :)

I like how simple this is. You just give it an url to fetch the next
payment request and a date to fetch it.

What should happen if the client tries to fetch the PaymentRequest early or
late? Does it become valid after some date and stay valid for some length
of time? Also, what should happen if the client tries to consume the same
PaymentRequest twice (or multiple times) during the same period?

I do not think daily/weekly/monthly is flexible enough. What do you think
about having a concrete start time and end time when the next
PaymentRequest will be valid? This also prevents the wallet from having to
remember when it last sent a payment and getting skewed over time.

When a wallet hits the polling_url to download the next PaymentRequest, it
seems we need a way to communicate an error code to the wallet, for example
if the server canceled the contract without the wallet knowing. Perhaps a
separate polling_status_url, with a corresponding ACK message to indicate
if the PaymentRequest is available. What do you think of that idea?

One high-level comment -- the wallet in this design doesn't have any way of
knowing when the payments are supposed to end. I feel this is important to
show to the user before they start their wallet polling infinitely.

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Stephane Brossier <stephane at kill-bill.org>wrote:

> Mike, Gavin,
>
>
> We started to work on the merchant side to test the integration of our
> prototype for the recurring payments. We modified the 'Payment Request
> Generator' from Gavin to include a new check box 'set recurring'. We forked
> the code and checked in our modification here:
> https://github.com/killbill/paymentrequest/commit/e530f6ec528266aacfd076d7c3154ad39267c3f3
>
> We also found a few issues with the code diff that we sent yesterday for
> bitcoinj and checked in the bug fixes in our fork-- so the diff sent
> yesterday is slightly outdated.
>
> So at this point we have a working prototype for bitcoinj and we are
> waiting for your feedbacks. We also started to look at integrating the
> protocol in Kill Bill to check that what is proposed supports indeed the
> business cases of a full recurring billing platform.
>
> Hope to hear from you guys soon!
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Stephane Brossier <stephane at kill-bill.org>
> wrote:
>
> Mike and all,
>
> Pierre and I just committed a prototype implementation of the recurring
> payment protocol using bitcoinj. You can find the diff on our fork:
>
> https://github.com/killbill/bitcoinj/commit/40c657c4191498f12539c60316116aa68af368a7
>
> We did not write the server (merchant side), but wanted to have some
> feedback before going deeper (merchant implementation and tests). We did
> our best to build it on top of the existing BIP-0070 protocol-- only a few
> additions in the messages, but no new calls and no new uri scheme. We
> created a new package 'recurring' where most of the new code lives.
>
> At a high level:
>
> 1. Creation of the subscription:
>
> The initial handshake for creating the subscription is exactly similar to
> the one for the payment protocol (PaymentRequest is used to provide the
> contract)
>
> 2. Wallet can decide to poll the merchants for its active subscriptions.
>
> Here the flow is exactly similar to the payment protocol but the wallet
> receives a callback to verify the payment matches the contract and should
> go through.
>
> Please give us some feedback whenever you have the chance. In the meantime
> we will start implementing the merchant side and test the code.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
> That looks OK at a very high level. Things you probably want to think
> about:
>
> - How to trigger it off the existing payment protocol (no new top
> level messages or mime types or uri extensions please)
> - Data structures to define the payment schedule
> - Do you allow pre-submission of time locked transactions or not?
>
> I think as you prototype these things will become clearer. You could try
> prototyping either in Bitcoin Core (C++) or bitcoinj (java, look at the
> PaymentSession class).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Stephane Brossier <stephane at kill-bill.org
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From what I have seen so far, there seems to be an agreement that this
>> is a nice feature to add. We are pretty new to that community and so we
>> don't know exactly what the process is, and in particular how we reach
>> consensus via email. I am certainly open to follow 'the way' if there is
>> one, but one solution would be to follow Mike's suggestion on providing a
>> (prototype) implementation first and then defining/refining the BIP. Odinn
>> also suggested a possible retribution for our time through crowd-sourcing
>> which I am interested to pursue if that makes sense. We have quite some
>> experience on the subscription side of things and while we are growing our
>> knowledge on the Bitcoin technology (and ecosystem at large) we would
>> benefit from: * some feedbacks on the high level proposal * additional
>> requirements we might have missed So, below is a high level description of
>> what we have in mind. If this sounds reasonable, we could start working on
>> an implementation. I. Abstract --------------- This describes a protocol to
>> enable recurring payments in bitcoins and can be seen as an extension of
>> BIP-0070. The main goal here is to have the customer subscribe to a service
>> of some kind (that is, agreeing on the terms of that subscription
>> contract), and then have the wallet make recurring payments without any
>> intervention from the customer as long as the payments match what the
>> customer agreed on paying. An example of such service would be an online
>> streaming website, to which a user pays a fixed recurring monthly fee to
>> access videos (a.k.a. resources). Note that there is also usage based
>> billing: for example, the user may need to purchase additional access for
>> premium videos (overage charges). This type of billing is more complicated
>> and there are many variations to it used in the industry (pre-paid, ...). For
>> the sake of discussion, we'll focus on fixed recurring payments only, but
>> we will keep usage in mind to make sure the protocol will be able to
>> support it as well. II. Motivation ------------------ Subscription based
>> services have been growing in the past few years and so the intent it to
>> make it possible for customers to pay in bitcoins. Bitcoin's push model
>> presents new advantages for the customer compared to traditional payment
>> methods: the user has control over the subscription (for example, there is
>> no need to call the merchant to explicitly cancel the credit card
>> payments). It also opens the door to subscription management tools in
>> wallets (e.g. Hive apps), which would give user an overview of what they
>> are paying each month. III. Flow of
>> Operations----------------------------------------*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * Creation of the subscription: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> - 1. The customer clicks 'subscribe' -> A message is sent to the merchant.
>> 2. The merchant sends back a message to the wallet with the details of the
>> subscription such as the amount to be paid. In reality, there will be more
>> information but for the purpose of the prototype implementation this is
>> sufficient. 3. The wallet prompts the customer for authorization. 4. The
>> customer authorizes (or denies) it. 5. The wallet sends the confirmation to
>> the merchant. 6. The merchant confirms the subscription was created.
>> Ongoing payments: *
>>
>> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * From that time on and since Bitcoin is a 'push' model, the wallet is
>> responsible to poll the merchant for due payments associated with that
>> subscription. Note that the merchant could specify hints to the wallet on
>> when to poll (specific dates) or not during the registration of the
>> subscription. Note that we can't simply have the wallet push X bitcoins
>> every month: the user account on the merchant side may have gotten credits,
>> invoice adjustments, etc. since the last invoice, so the amount to pay for
>> a given billing period may be lower than the regular amount. It could even
>> be zero if the user decides to make a one-time payment to the merchant
>> directly using a different wallet. Hence, the wallet needs to get the
>> latest invoice balance to make sure how much it should pay. This also opens
>> the door for the support of overage charges. Quick note on the
>> implementation on the merchant side: an entitlement system is a piece of
>> logic on the merchant side which grants the user access to certain
>> resources depending on the account status (unpaid invoices, etc.). This
>> goes often hand in hand with a dunning system, which progressively
>> restricts access as the user's account is more and more overdue. Since
>> wallets can be offline for an extended period of time, payments may be
>> missed and lead to an overdue state (e.g. extra fees, service degraded). It
>> is the responsibility of the customer to ensure the wallet is up often
>> enough for payments to happen. In that recurring phase where the wallet
>> polls the merchant, the wallet is responsible to check that payments match
>> the subscription contract; that is, the amount, frequency of payments, ...
>> match what the customer agreed on. If so, the payment is made without
>> asking for explicit approval from customer, and the flow is similar to
>> BIP-0070: The message is sent to the merchant, and in parallel, a
>> transaction is sent to the btcnet. The merchant sends an ACK to the wallet
>> and of course checks the states of the transactions on the btcnet to mark
>> that payment as successful. Subscription change (optional): *
>>
>> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>>
>>
>> * Optionally we could implement a change in the ongoing subscription to
>> address the upgrade/downgrade scenarios. Of course, we could also simply
>> support a cancellation followed by a creation of a new subscription, but
>> having that as a one atomic message is probably better. The steps are very
>> similar to the initial registration. 1. The customer clicks 'upgrade',
>> 'downgrade', ... -> A msg is sent to the merchant. 2. The merchant sends back
>> a msg to the wallet with the detail of the NEW subscription. 3. The wallet
>> prompts the customer for authorization. 4. The customer authorizes (or
>> denies) it. 5. The wallet sends the confirmation to the merchant. 6. The
>> merchant confirms the change in the subscription. Cancellation of the
>> subscription: *
>>
>> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>>
>>
>>
>> * The cancellation is initiated from the customer: 1. The customer clicks
>> 'cancel' -> The wallet is informed that it should not accept any new
>> payment associated to that subscription. 2. The wallet sends a message to
>> the merchant to inform about the cancellation. 3. The merchant confirms the
>> subscription was cancelled. *
>>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140211/6c0620d6/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2014-01-28 📝 Original message:+1 to ...

2023-06-07T15:12:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…m54z
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2014-01-28
📝 Original message:+1 to the idea of recurring payment requests.

Perhaps one way to realize this would be to add an optional URL to the
PaymentRequest object where the next PaymentRequest can be fetched and the
date at which the merchant expects the next payment.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Stephane Brossier
<stephane at kill-bill.org>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> [I sent this email 2 days ago prior my registration to the mailing list;
> please forgive me if this is a duplicate]
>
> I would like to propose an extension to the Payment Protocol (bip-0070) to
> address the case of recurring payments in Bitcoin -- new bip or
> modification of bip-0070.
>
> There has been a lot of growth in the last few years in the 'subscription
> economy' with many new companies embracing that model -- online video,
> gaming, groceries, newspapers,... In parallel, Bitcoin is growing into a
> mainstream currency (hence bip-0070), and so the next logical step would be
> to define a protocol to address that need.
>
> We have been working in the past few years on an open-source billing
> platform (http://kill-bill.org/), and recently came with a prototype to
> do recurring billing in Bitcoin (see
> http://thekillbillstory.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/bitcoin-plugin/ and
> http://thekillbillstory.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/coinbase-integration-experiment/
> ).
>
>
> The work flow would look similar to the one from bip-0070. There would
> need to be some additions; the flow could be summarized as follow:
>
> 0. Click: 'Subscribe Now'
> 1. Wallet would get a RecurringPaymentRequestAuth which describes the
> nature of the future recurring payments
> 2. The Customer would get prompted from the wallet to authorize it.
> 3. The wallet would then poll the Merchant server (startup time, and/or
> well defined frequency) and potentially merchant would start issuing a
> PaymentRequest); the role of the wallet is to ensure that PaymentRequest is
> within the bounds of what was accepted by the customer-- amount,
> frequency,.. If it is, then it would make the Payment the same way it works
> for bip-0070
>
> Is that something that the community would be interested in? We could
> provide more details about the protocol we have in mind (messages and
> flow), and also provide an implementation with bitcoinj as a wallet and
> Kill Bill as a merchant server.
>
> Le me know what you think.
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
> security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
> security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
> a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140127/f154809e/attachment.html>;