On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:20:50PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Furthermore, many of these ideas -- like sending TX's directly to the > >> merchant -- involve far more direct payee<->payer communication on the > >> part of the wallet client than is currently envisioned > > > > Yes, though it's worth remembering that the original Bitcoin design > > did have participants communicate directly. When I talked with Satoshi > > in 2009 he saw the pay-to-IP-address mode imagined as the normal way > > to make payments, with pay-to-address being used as a kind of backup > > for when the recipient was offline. > > > > In the end that's not how things evolved, but it the pendulum could > > easily swing back the other way. > > But I also have a "gut feeling" that these sorts of payments and > direct communication should be done via a wholly separate protocol > than the bitcoin P2P protocol. Doing p2ip as it was done originally, > inside the bitcoin P2P protocol, was a mistake. Extensible as it is, > I think a better job -- and faster evolution -- can be done with a > separate protocol on a separate port. > > Some HTTP derivative would probably make life easier for mobile > payments and firewalled scenarios, and for client->merchant > communications, for instance.
Have you ever read https://gist.github.com/1237788 ? -- Pieter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
