You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I recently read over ZIP-321. After reviewing it, it does seem like it addresses many of the pain points for the sender, and most of the points covered by BIP-70. One thing it does not address that was in BIP-70 is providing a signed payment request. (Implementation issues aside)
As the originator of a payment request, and the recipient of the payment, you really only want to get exactly what you requested, or nothing at all. Payment exceptions (overpayment, underpayment, duplicates) are costly and hard to support in a scalable way. Ideally, you want to be able to block a payment that you did not request.
Is something like this possible, maybe by extending the ZIP-321 scheme?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I recently read over ZIP-321. After reviewing it, it does seem like it addresses many of the pain points for the sender, and most of the points covered by BIP-70. One thing it does not address that was in BIP-70 is providing a signed payment request. (Implementation issues aside)
As the originator of a payment request, and the recipient of the payment, you really only want to get exactly what you requested, or nothing at all. Payment exceptions (overpayment, underpayment, duplicates) are costly and hard to support in a scalable way. Ideally, you want to be able to block a payment that you did not request.
Is something like this possible, maybe by extending the ZIP-321 scheme?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: