<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Payment protocol just doesn't well the use cases of,<br>
* an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase<br>
* deposit addresses and deposit situations</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems to be the key point of disagreement here. Wladimir and I think it satisfies your requirement just fine. You disagree. Let's get to the bottom of that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>A PaymentRequest with a zero valued pay-to-address output and an expiration time, base58 encoded, would look very much like your extended address form. I don't suggest anyone actually represents PaymentRequest's using base58 but it helps to see the conceptual analogue. There'd be a bit more stuff in there like some varint and wiretype codes but we're talking a handful of bytes. Functionally, it'd be identical.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Places like protocols or APIs that require a piece of text and cannot handle a piece of binary data could be retrofitted into the new world by accepting base58 encoded PaymentRequest's. This would be kind of silly because it's fundamentally binary data, but we already do this so it's at least consistently silly :)</div>
</div></div></div>