At the other hand, from the paying side, when I get to a merchant's web page that gives me SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount I ought to send - why in a world would it not be enough for me?
Why would I need an additional, payment request, signed with exactly the same certificate?
Why would I need an additional, payment request, signed with exactly the same certificate?
Good luck taking your screenshot of the "SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount" to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay.
In other words, you don't really understand which problems the payment protocol is trying to solve.
Which court? If the merchant is in Chile and the customer in Russia, what use is this? Bitcoin is a global system, but there is no world court people can go to, to settle disputes. This can in theory only apply if the two parties agree which court settles disputes, and the court even considers itself responsible. If you're drafting social protocols you should have some understanding of how economic transactions work. Commercial transactions consist of much more than just the payment itself (what happens if there is no delivery, delivery not on time, bad delivers, ...). And if you want to integrate with legal systems via software, you better clearly specify what you're talking about. Since when is the Bitcoin network dependent on courts?! And if the payment protocol addresses any of these issues, why is not stated in the draft protocol. Just because this idea is in someone's head doesn't make it a fact. The Bitcoin developers "in charge" should really think harder about these issues. And if they claim no one is in charge, then please find someone to understand the economics and write proper protocols.
If I'm following you correctly, you think that there should be no courts because they can't help in all disputes? That every transaction should be spelled out in complete detail, even though it is pointless because neither party needs to follow it?
The vast majority of internet transactions are "local" to one judicial system, and also follow a standard template (I pay you X, you send me Y). A signed statement of X and Y, along with blockchain evidence that X was completed, gives the purchaser some confidence that they will have some useful recourse in the event that the vendor fails to complete Y.
Good luck taking your screenshot of the "SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount" to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay.
Who said anything about screenshots?I meant something like the receipts localbitcoins.com do.
Or whatever message "pay this amount, to this address, for this product", signed with either bitcoin address, or a PGP key - that's all you need for a digital receipt, mr big smartass but little imagination.
And BTW, good luck taking your payment protocol receipt to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay.
You are obviously living in a dream world. Though most Americans do, so you are just following the pattern.
And how is PGP or bitcoin signing any better? Do you ask the court for a subpoena to search all of their records for evidence that they possess the private key that signed your receipt? Or do you think that the judge will take your word for it that you've brought suit against the correct party?
One nice thing about being an American is knowing that our courts do, for the most part, understand cryptography and digital signatures.