<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-09-12&#xA;📝 Original message:On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Andreas Schildbach&#xA;&lt;andreas at schildbach.de&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; This is the discussion post corresponding to this PR:&#xA;&gt; https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/106&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &#34;Amend BIP72 by an &#34;h&#34; parameter, which contains a hash of the&#xA;&gt; PaymentRequest message that is fetched via the &#34;r&#34; parameter.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The hash is meant to link the trust anchor (e.g. the QR code) to the&#xA;&gt; payment request message in a secure way. This will solve the problem&#xA;&gt; several apps are comparing address+amount fields as a workaround&#xA;&gt; instead, preventing some advanced BIP70 usecases. When these apps read a&#xA;&gt; matching hash, they need not compare any of the other fields.&#xA;&#xA;Sounds like a good idea to me.&#xA;&#xA;I had no idea that some clients were comparing addresses and amounts&#xA;in the URI with the payment request for security, that seems like a&#xA;hacky and inflexible way. This is much better.&#xA;&#xA;Wladimir</html></oembed>