Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBCF58E3 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:24:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0601411 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 19:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E721E2289A; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:24:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sprovoost.nl; h= cc:content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Yj/V4Yu4Bg6e+ZpuW 2INTmCNirVwqNYmcmHY07fx7WQ=; b=U++cj1bdnekBgbnfskZcCOnBSI8hvicHb oJJlhTfed5hNZ9qnV9derzVKuTBiap77Q1b6+YJ5r5q8HorivV+mwP0bSHrm05Sx 4XydEBEBRO5xJ+crzx5PZE8BRsXkU1DF1d+isHmQLBcvS/dKpAS8VO8sLlysu7x6 DDKopzWeFYNOmbXUJBm43BCFo+Yzu85847N9ZradW15qKQbkgGxBjUb0l1abkoeD eeK5WdaZg1yt+8iOxVw1LtepoWwjkG38LI4EnNsv5dCYClzBQodxWJrw1C/Ak5yr dEDArGaqRkW6uQU2zlHnDMwrrtw/bwqEWhawmqhpXBUfLZ4vjPUtQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=Yj/V4Yu4Bg6e+ZpuW2INTmCNirVwqNYmcmHY07fx7WQ=; b=gR0zHhaN ilshbb4g2/D/8Ja05Wc95LrsgxM3LV51/vyeL49GiUzBtLD3i0mrg+75AyF19cA8 EobXQLfugEizyifZaFM/TdG4iJLu/42TJD7SGhN0TPCAyzB6PkaGK/QVjWo2rsml mGORiVRqU3QNl62LJar68ST5rWQKVjIWNaBPYyzbIYugpXSYwAao+v48mfFEeqhA Y2f/LrHS5utpye4jPtnFqYF9JXO8YIcmQ8ttw6L3BEbBU+Ki8461vgcRs9MSfqh8 TT/kaX+JEDLm7cqn2doiWV6IAlOj6RI0ZQeZMU8ZaPDzqNqZAABc4iA6lJH7E9Xc Y9sPWdtBEAtrWw== X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.178.108] (54693d0f.cm-12-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl [84.105.61.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1F74A7E4AA; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:24:07 -0500 (EST) From: Sjors Provoost Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3D330D5-38FD-43B6-A337-B687BF2DF18D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:24:04 +0100 To: Bitcoin Dev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:33:58 +0000 Cc: Matt Corallo Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-21 amendment proposal: -no125 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:24:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B3D330D5-38FD-43B6-A337-B687BF2DF18D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One way to reduce fees is to encourage usage of Replace-By-Fee, BIP 125 = [0]. It allows wallets to recommend lower fees, because if a transaction = gets stuck due to underestimation, the fee can easily be bumped. Bitcoin Core has had support for RBF for a while, and as of v0.15.0 = recommends lower fees [1] when the user chooses to use RBF. I recently submitted a pull request that would turn on RBF by default, = which triggered some discussion [2]. To ease the transition for = merchants who are reluctant to see their customers use RBF, Matt Corallo = suggested that wallets honor a no125=3D1 flag. So a BIP-21 URI would look like this: = bitcoin:175t...45W?amount=3D20.3&no125=3D1 When this flag is set, wallets should not use RBF, regardless of their = default, unless the user explicitly overrides the merchant's preference. Afaik adding this flag won't break existing BIP-21 support. It doesn't = use the req- prefix, because it's optional. I'm also not aware of any ad = hoc standards that use no125 in BIP-21-ish URIs. - Sjors P.S. I'd similarly suggest adding a bech32 param, but that's for another = discussion [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki [1] = https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/09/01/release-0.15.0/#better-fee-estimates= [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11605 [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11828 --Apple-Mail=_B3D330D5-38FD-43B6-A337-B687BF2DF18D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE7ZvfetalXiMuhFJCV/+b28wwEAkFAlom8lQACgkQV/+b28ww EAmIdxAAjKmBteOC/Y/HPSm2rHFflKGzy3NwgBSblHQMzCpeu/p2nH2GWCLkL5Ef pdd1/ErpYJMB5EPT06OksiMJRUXhboGXOtqXbT4Sp+lPNlcGmMZ9ZX9kK70G8G4t a8JV+MJ++Gxj8yGzjCG4cfmbaWGwWVcjr8YMscLJTrfhmZeLAsAyzg1tREB0/qQ4 DikOGCjgj0V0jhisu5c+AijftUh/gg9eYNgTSGdyMgzYWtIRXtd7/YfkfNtmyTfw 5s/WKgZlpEWKYIll3OL8yyAmxQTyKtTBXRuB7kLfuVKIxd146l3GYz6Vbma+0fSN xRftoKAlZvc/OT30sGxQHlq9fo4laREVDouERbZ9fLxDyPMGLNfYE/Whx+gE+9j0 WCUqTg2aKN+Pwc4URE4YgYqrIfpam78TYW2EG5+eMgY4W2JeV1bOxvhTidnuPw/Z 1D1c30SBx7UY2/j0J+bZf7Cc9jYaLhV/T70OY9ZFINbmwb8TQFSu5cDOutpeux8+ hcxVABfLJnUpVRJGIP43OvNi0Evsw8c/iR5nLYH6uWQfx9xhNN3J0Gu/zT3NKlWN x991KDs5fJCEAs4cKS0xClKoHfl8oW7MMV8V2fa18ytqLk3Eqv8dEy7BV1kNS/Df mYr5uOl4yiVjXm+mqhSLMQc2sVvOOPyANrRfilmf7VeTjA3oGok= =dDv/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B3D330D5-38FD-43B6-A337-B687BF2DF18D--