{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-06-21\n📝 Original message:On Monday, June 20, 2016 5:33:32 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e BIP 0070 has been a a moderate success, however, IMO:\n\u003e \n\u003e - protocol buffers are inappropriate since ease of use and extensibility is\n\u003e desired over the minor gains of efficiency in this protocol.  Not too late\n\u003e to support JSON messages as the standard going forward\n\nIMO JSON is too prone to gratuitous inefficiency (both at network and CPU \nlevel), parser bugs, etc. Even the best C implementation (jansson) has serious \nissues with Number handling.\n\nA few years ago, I looked into binary alternatives to JSON and concluded they \nall had problems, while it seems more than reasonable to do even dynamic \nparsing of protobuf messages. So to conclude, I prefer to stick to protobuf \nunless a clearly superior protocol turns up.\n\n\u003e - problematic reliance on merchant-supplied https (X509) as the sole form\n\u003e of mechant identification.   alternate schemes (dnssec/netki), pgp and\n\u003e possibly keybase seem like good ideas.   personally, i like keybase, since\n\u003e there is no reliance on the existing domain-name system (you can sell with\n\u003e a github id, for example)\n\nX509 is entrenched, so it should remain supported. PGP might make sense for \npeople already using it (it provides no real security for un-WoT-networked \nusers), but unforunately, few people use it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC \nKeybase uses blockchain spam, so definitely not something to be encouraged if \nso. Namecoin seems like a more than reasonable decentralised solution, but \nwill probably take some real work to implement (not that this is avoidable for \na general-usage decentralised solution).\n\n\u003e - missing an optional client supplied identification\n\nWhat do you mean by this? There's the memo field at least.\n\n\u003e - lack of basic subscription support\n\u003e \n\u003e *Proposed for subscriptions:*\n\u003e \n\u003e - BIP0047 payment codes are recommended instead of wallet addresses when\n\u003e establishing subscriptions.  Or, merchants can specify replacement\n\u003e addresses in ACK/NACK responses.   UI confirms are *required *when there\n\u003e are no replacement addresses or payment codes used.\n\nI'd discourage anything using BIP 47 due to its serious design flaws.\nNo reason a regular BIP 32 pub seed can't be used instead.\n\nWhat do you mean by \"replacement addresses\" and \"UI confirms\" here?\n\n\u003e - Wallets must confirm and store subscriptions, and are responsible for\n\u003e initiating them at the specified interval.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Intervals can *only *be from a preset list: weekly, biweekly, or 1,\n\u003e 2,3,4,6 or 12 months.   Intervals missed by more than 3 days cause\n\u003e suspension until the user re-verifies.\n\nDisagree with hard-coding intervals, or mandating specific policies from the \nservice providers.\n\n\u003e - Wallets *may *optionally ask the user whether they want to be notified\n\u003e and confirm every interval - or not.   Wallets that do not ask *must\n\u003e *notify before initiating each payment.   Interval confirmations should\n\u003e begin at *least *1 day in advance of the next payment.\n\nThis is wallet policy, but maybe makes sense as a \"best practices\" BIP.\n\n\u003e *Proposed in general:*\n\u003e - JSON should be used instead of protocol buffers going forward.  Easier to\n\u003e use, explain extend.\n\u003e \n\u003e - \"Extendible\" URI-like scheme to support multi-mode identity mechanisms on\n\u003e both payment and subscription requests.   Support for keybase://, netki://\n\u003e and others as alternates to https://.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Support for client as well as merchant multi-mode verification\n\u003e \n\u003e - Ideally, the identity verification URI scheme is somewhat\n\u003e orthogonal/independent of the payment request itself\n\u003e \n\u003e Question:\n\u003e \n\u003e Should this be a new BIP?  I know netki's BIP75 is out there - but I think\n\u003e it's too specific and too reliant on the domain name system.\n\u003e\n\u003e Maybe an identity-protocol-agnostic BIP + solid implementation of a couple\n\u003e major protocols without any mention of payment URI's ... just a way of\n\u003e sending and receiving identity verified messages in general?\n\u003e \n\u003e I would be happy to implement plugins for identity protocols, if anyone\n\u003e thinks this is a good idea.\n\u003e \n\u003e Does anyone think https:// or keybase, or PGP or netki all by themselves,\n\u003e is enough - or is it always better to have an extensible protocol?\n\u003e \n\u003e - Erik Aronesty"}