<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuyn</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1wtx5qvewc7pd6znlvwktq03mdld05mv3h5dkzfwd3dc30gdmsptsugtuyn</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2011-12-13&#xA;🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal for a way for merchants to translate a human-readable address into a bitcoin address, using HTTP(S) requests to a merchant-specified URL. Allows for per-transaction or fixed addresses.&#xA;📝 Original message:I think the scope of this BIP is not so well defined right now. We need a&#xA;way for merchants to translate a human readable, and more importantly&#xA;human-writeable, address into a bitcoin address. I agree with Mike that a&#xA;fixed address is not the way to go, because addresses should be used once&#xA;for a single transaction to be able to track payments.&#xA;&#xA;While firstbits sounds attractive at first, I think we can all agree that&#xA;it just isn&#39;t feasible and would not allow per-transaction addresses. DNS&#xA;sounds interesting for fixed addresses, but caching and propagation make it&#xA;difficult to use for per-transaction addresses that are to be generated&#xA;ad-hoc.&#xA;&#xA;HTTP(S) is the best option I think, merchants are probably using HTTP&#xA;anyway for their shops. So something like&#xA;http://merchant.com/btc/transaction/1234 sounds reasonable. But I think it&#xA;should not be over-engineered, it should be a simple HTTP(S) request to a&#xA;merchant specified URL that returns an ASCII document containing either a&#xA;bitcoin: URI or simply the bitcoin address or even a 301 redirect. It&#39;s no&#xA;use to start defining URL schemes, it should be left to the merchants to&#xA;define how to structure them.&#xA;&#xA;This would allow a merchant to decide if he prefers per-transaction&#xA;addresses, per-user transactions, fixed addresses or any combination.&#xA;&#xA;Regards,&#xA;cdecker&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Mike Hearn &lt;mike at plan99.net&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I was in brmlab and wanted to pay 1 BTC for a Club Mate. They had on the&#xA;&gt;&gt; wall a picture of their QR code and a bitcoin address. I don&#39;t own a mobile&#xA;&gt;&gt; phone so the QR code is&#xA;&gt;&gt; useless.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Fixed addresses like that are a temporary thing during Bitcoins maturation&#xA;&gt; period. They lead to merchants exposing data they probably don&#39;t realize&#xA;&gt; they&#39;re exposing, like their income, which is basically unacceptable for&#xA;&gt; any payment system.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; There&#39;s no point trying to optimize a case where:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1) You are in the minority (no phone?)&#xA;&gt; 2) The &#34;perfect experience&#34; leaks private data in such a way that would be&#xA;&gt; deemed a gross security breach by any serious payment processor.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; OK, some thoughts on the general proposal, from the POV of what it&#39;d take&#xA;&gt; for a large deployment, like for every Gmail or every Facebook user. In&#xA;&gt; terms of ease of implementation it is ordered HTTPS/HTTP then DNS trailing&#xA;&gt; by a large margin. Big sites, even small sites, typically have high-speed&#xA;&gt; load balancing and demuxing already implemented for HTTP[S] and it&#39;s&#xA;&gt; usually easy to add new endpoints. The same is *not* true of DNS, and&#xA;&gt; whilst coding up a custom DNS server is possible it&#39;s definitely a worse&#xA;&gt; fit.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; FirstBits seems out of the question for the same privacy reasons as given&#xA;&gt; above. No banking system worth its salt would let everyone look up other&#xA;&gt; peoples income.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The simplest approach would be to request a full public key with an HTTPS&#xA;&gt; request like&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;    foo at domain -&gt;&#xA;&gt; https://domain/_bitcoin/getnewkey?user=foo&amp;label=Payment%20from%20Bob&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; If you then want to turn the resulting public key into an address before&#xA;&gt; creating a transaction you can obviously do that.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; BTW the BIP is pretty hard to read. Your spec for the HTTPS proposal is a&#xA;&gt; big pile of source code. I think it&#39;s the same as above, but it&#39;s hard to&#xA;&gt; tell without more effort.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt; Systems Optimization Self Assessment&#xA;&gt; Improve efficiency and utilization of IT resources. Drive out cost and&#xA;&gt; improve service delivery. Take 5 minutes to use this Systems Optimization&#xA;&gt; Self Assessment. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sdnl/114/51450054/&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111213/2f4582b5/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>