On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the
> "concatenation of", why not just make it a signature over the
> serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo
> code). Otherwise it seems like we'd need more co
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> When I say "pass around" I'm not thinking of users copying and pasting,
> that would be a terrible user experience; all of that communication needs
> to happen automatically behind the scenes. Lets tackle that after we've got
> the simpler c
Re: the newest spec. Rather than make the signature over the
"concatenation of", why not just make it a signature over the
serialized protobuf minus the signature field (as I did in my demo
code). Otherwise it seems like we'd need more code than really
necessary. We can state explicitly tags must b
Spec updated yet again:
https://gist.github.com/4120476
Renamed to PaymentRequest/PaymentACK.
Added a 'network' field ("main" or "test") to PaymentRequest so testnet and
main network (and alterna-chain) payment requests don't get confused.
Updated description of PaymentRequest.outputs:
output
Escrow/multisig is complicated enough to wait for another day. But
certainly having a payment protocol is an important step towards it
On 6 Dec 2012 07:32, "Andreas Petersson" wrote:
> During/before the Payment Request there should be a method to exchange
> the public keys to be able to generate
5 matches
Mail list logo
