Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.50; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f50.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJN0ajyfFbLbuxqSph=LhaaHM71=4KAj7W1ggivxuxAvRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3iyQ9zQ+hDnooxrjdBO+_Fj+nAkK1Skgk+Gb4gkidPhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0Omiz+UhGjSKgYU7+b2YY7aN23w7o8CQntqMePFs7LkjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP06gk-JhKaNpvYUTfjFq9AGnCay9=pjUGpVMjMSuX3_ew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJna-HhX8HOci0KMe4ZScr4QW792S3n5twvU0QhbQe1N_3q7_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<6E6F88E9-5698-419B-927C-F65A5FCABBE9@gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0PYfuJg3daPvzPFZpFz7ezH2RHpJ8zyz2g1NDKppM7rWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BBF86C9B-6B3D-4A03-AC7B-35619C47091F@gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T13yksenx5aYd4HVqTyVjARx9aTHy=Neu64p6k9FnRRVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<C95DB811-9E6A-4EA2-AE8F-83595C3AC817@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0ce4MMX2hOhcGVWt23L_CMn6Cmj9_Okqd0BR9seQXJew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC1+kJN0ajyfFbLbuxqSph=LhaaHM71=4KAj7W1ggivxuxAvRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:10:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MaoG2gDkgEkTuV0d3U1=p2Zmr4E-kO=qowpZeRY0q7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP 70 extension
Precedence: list

Remember the IETF RFC process.

1) RFCs are never updated.  Extensions go into new RFCs.
2) Build an implementation, write a draft, circulate both.  Then get a
BIP number.
3) As MH indicated, it would be useful to have a living payment
protocol document that _is_ updated.
4) Let's stop calling it BIP70.  That just reinforces the desire to
update the BIP70 document.


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@monetize.io> wrot=
e:
> +1 on setting up the payment protocol extensions process more formally.
> On the feature itself, it is interesting to note that some
> complementary currencies backed by national currencies offer a
> discount when converting from fiat to complementary, which has an
> equivalent effect to this "discount for paying with btc". The main
> difference is that in local currencies the merchants are a relatively
> small group and the discount is uniform whereas here each merchant can
> set his own discount. There's scientific studies on how different
> currency features like these discounts affect adoption, velocity and
> other variables. I can ask for them if anyone is interested.
>
> On the implementation, I think a percentage/proportion would be
> preferable over an amount in satoshis.
> Let's imagine for a second that the bitcoin payment protocol ends up
> being a generalized and universal payment protocol. The field would be
> really something like "discount/additional_charge for paying with the
> chosen currency/payment_method".
> You could have 0.95 for a 5% discount or 1.05 for a 5% additional
> charge. Mhmm, maybe a flat discount/charge in addition to the
> proportional one...
>
> On security, being an optional field, I don't see how can it harm anythin=
g.
> It is true that the merchants can lie about the discount, but wallets
> can be smart or stupid about it, or just completely ignore the field
> as they wish.
>
> Anyway, it feels like a random simple extension as an excuse to
> develop the extension process. If it gets too complicated we can start
> with a simpler and less critical one but it's hard for me to imagine
> it.
>
>
> On 6/25/14, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree. It would be even sillier to start specifying container formats
>>> for random one-off "that would be kind of nice, I guess" features.
>>>
>>
>> No, it'd be sensible.
>>
>> Here's a list I drew up a long time ago of features I imagined adding to
>> the payment protocol:
>>
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D270055.msg2890147#msg2890147
>>
>> The protocol is there to contain features! There is zero benefit to
>> slavishly following some religious notion of purity or minimalism here. =
The
>> shared resource in question is just varint encoded integers. So, we shou=
ld
>> be guided by what will help our users and what will help adoption.
>>
>> Anyway, Gavin asked me to start handling more BIP 70 stuff a few weeks a=
go.
>> I want to use something simple to set up the extensions process more
>> formally. IMO we need a "living document" version of the payment protoco=
l
>> with all the different extensions out there folded into it, to simplify
>> programming tasks and ensure field numbers don't collide.
>>
>
>
> --
> Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
> Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Editi=
on
> Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
> Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


--=20
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/