avatar
蓝狐
62,384 Twitter followers
Follow
蓝狐笔记,通往web3的世界。 (1.仅记录想法,没有客观只有主观,不能作为投资建议 ;2.蓝狐笔记只有此号,没有任何telegram或discord等群,没有其他分号,不会要求任何人参与投资,也不会发表跟区块链无关内容 ;3.不会发布链接,不要点击,谨防受骗。)
Posts
avatar
蓝狐
Your statement is correct. However, it's not entirely a "repackaging of an old concept." First, the HTTP 402 "Payment Required" header has indeed been defined since HTTP/1.1, and the specification explicitly states "reserved for future use." It has always existed in all browsers, servers, and HTTP libraries, but it has almost never been actually used in production environments. The main reason it wasn't used before was due to obstacles in use cases and practical implementation. For example, credit card/bank transfer fees were too high (fixed fee + percentage). For micropayments, the total cost might only be a few cents, making it uneconomical; a $0.01 transaction might have fees exceeding the transaction amount. Furthermore, there was no instant settlement before, browsers didn't have built-in wallets/servers to automatically verify on-chain payments, there were no global instant payment channels, and stablecoins have only developed in recent years; there was also no standardized "payment as request" process (the details of how the server tells the client to pay, the client automatically pays, and how to prove payment). In terms of use cases, previously, most internet browsing was done by humans. Webpage loading and API calls didn't typically require "paying for every request," and revenue was generally generated through subscriptions and advertising, usually on a one-time payment basis. Now, AI agents need to frequently make small-amount API calls, purchase computing power, or acquire data; these scenarios are only just beginning to emerge. As a result, while HTTP 402 has existed for a long time, it has been almost entirely unused. The significance of x402 isn't just a repackaging, but an indispensable piece of the puzzle. It standardizes the 402 process: The client initiates a request; the server returns an HTTP 402 + payment request (amount, currency, receiving address, etc.); The client automatically initiates payment (using stablecoins) along with proof of payment. After verifying successful payment, the server provides the resources to the client. The process involves no accounts, no logins, and no human intervention, completing in a few hundred milliseconds. In the current era of machine-to-machine payments by AI agents, this is a perfect match: AI agents can autonomously spend money to call APIs, inference models, and data services. Expanding to neutral, open standards allows more players to participate, meaning it's not just Coinbase doing it.
Powerpei
@PWenzhen76938
听起来很酷但我有点困惑,HTTP402这个状态码不是从 HTTP/1.1 就预留了吗? 现在才标准化是因为之前没人用还是有什么技术障碍?感觉像是把一个老概念重新包装了一下
avatar
蓝狐
If you really want to discuss the issue, then let's discuss it. It's okay if I'm wrong. However, brother, what you said is full of loopholes: 1. "Address and public key are two different things"—that's true, but this is actually the root of the exposure risk. P2PK (Pay-to-Public-Key): Early addresses directly wrote the public key in the scriptPubKey, 100% exposed from the genesis block (no spending required). These are not "hash addresses," but raw public key addresses. 2PKH/P2WPKH, etc.: The address is a public key hash; the public key is hidden when not spent. But once spent, the public key is exposed on the chain during signing. After that, this UTXO becomes permanently quantum fragile. "The ancient gurus have already converted to hashes" sounds like "it's okay," but it ignores two types of real exposure: 1) P2PKs that haven't been converted yet (still accounting for the majority of early mining output). 2) Converted but reused addresses (exposed after spending)—this is the mainstream risk. 1. The idea that "address = hash equals security" is a panacea, ignoring the reality of exposure after spending. 2. "At most, the exposed public keys don't amount to many block rewards"—this needs to be estimated based on data. It can't be based on mere assumptions. On March 31, 2026, the Google Quantum AI white paper explicitly estimated that: Early P2PK (Pay-to-Public-Key) addresses directly exposed public keys, locking over 1.7 million BTC. Considering all script types and address reuse, approximately 6.9 million BTC are in a quantum exposed state (about 32% of the total supply), with reused addresses accounting for the majority of the exposure. Even using the white paper's most conservative estimate of 2.3 million (dormant), it's not a small number, not to mention that address reuse further expands the exposure. This data is not just "not many block rewards"!
再见甘客
@zjgker
能不能不要张口就来?地址和公钥是两回事。。 那些远古大神早就转哈希了,满打满算暴露的公钥根本没几个区块奖励。
ETH
0.65%
loading indicator
Loading..