Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RsAWW-0000jB-4y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:01:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.175; envelope-from=g.rowe.froot@gmail.com; helo=mail-gx0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RsAWQ-0000Y2-6k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:01:12 +0000 Received: by ggeq1 with SMTP id q1so178815gge.34 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:01:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.178.105 with SMTP id e69mr27499590yhm.50.1328004060763; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:01:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: g.rowe.froot@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.195.99 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:01:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1327881329.49770.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:01:00 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uZocpZIgUsoHWEKLoH--PQPZRas Message-ID: From: Gary Rowe To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f69944d561304b7d00a69 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (g.rowe.froot[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1RsAWQ-0000Y2-6k Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:01:12 -0000 --20cf303f69944d561304b7d00a69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think that the "send to private address" field will require more effort to implement than the simpler "expires" and "message" fields and should be deferred to a later BIP. There is a pressing need for expires and the only point of contention I see is the inclusion of a dual representation (block or timestamp). Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represents Bitcoin's pulse, there is no guarantee that a block will be discovered at any particular moment. From a merchant perspective the main point of the expires field is to limit risk against currency movement (immediate cash out) or inventory movement (time limited offer). I have difficulty seeing a good use case that would need a block. People have been co-ordinating events based on a UTC timestamp for decades and I think we should stick with it. Regarding the "version" field I again think it adds unnecessary complexity. Pretty much everything that is needed within the Bitcoin URI scheme can be encoded with suitable optional fields (as query params) making the whole structure forward compatible. Having a version field seems redundant. Finally, the URI signing mechanism. Apologies for the earlier misunderstanding, I was reading from a limited description and it didn't make the purpose clear. I've since used https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58534.msg689190#msg689190 as my reference which is a lot clearer. I think it's a good idea, and I'll definitely support it in my MulitBit Merchant project, but it currently seems to need more work so I think should be deferred into a dedicated BIP. On 31 January 2012 08:35, Wladimir wrote: > > I also wonder whether the "send to private address" should be part of this > BIP, or a future one. > > IMO (but your mileage may vary) this BIP should only define the bare-bones > URL scheme, AND provide room for future extensions such > as send-to-private-address, send-multiple-signers, and so on. These should > be forwards-compatible (as Luke-Jr says) in the sense that older clients > can detect schemes they don't understand and give the user an appropriate > error message. > > Maybe we need a send-type parameter to define the scheme? > > Good point on the version parameter. How are clients supposed to handle > this? Refuse to handle the request if their URL scheme parser version is > older than in the URL? This should be in the BIP. > > Wladimir > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach > wrote: > >> Generally I prefer BIP 21 over BIP 20. >> >> I'm neutral on the 'send' parameter - present in both BIPs - which I >> don't understand. I think a practical usecase should be given in the BIP. >> >> Also, the 'version' parameter is unclear. What does it mean? Is an oder >> defined on versions (1.0b > 1.0)? Why is it an ";" parameter rather than >> a normal "&" parameter? >> >> >> On 01/30/2012 12:55 AM, Amir Taaki wrote: >> > Matt Corallo posted a modification of BIP 20 in an earlier email and I >> > asked him if he wanted to become the champion of that BIP he submitted. >> > >> > It is a modification of BIP 20 sans the alternative non-decimal number >> > stuff. >> > >> > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021 >> > >> > Right now, I will ask the GUI client implementations like MultiBit or >> > Bitcoin-Qt, not different codebases like BitCoinJ or libbitcoin if they >> > support BIP 20 or BIP 21. Feel free to raise any objections. >> > >> > More weight will be given to GUIs with actual URI sche me >> > implementations and it's good to have a general consensus. >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! >> > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers >> > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, >> > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Bitcoin-development mailing list >> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! >> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers >> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, >> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --20cf303f69944d561304b7d00a69 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that the "send to private address" field will require mor= e effort to implement than the simpler "expires" and "messag= e" fields and should be deferred to a later BIP. There is a pressing n= eed for expires and the only point of contention I see is the inclusion of = a dual representation (block or timestamp).

Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represe= nts Bitcoin's pulse, there is no guarantee that a block will be discove= red at any particular moment. From a merchant perspective the main point of= the expires field is to limit risk against currency movement (immediate ca= sh out) or inventory movement (time limited offer). I have difficulty seein= g a good use case that would need a block. People have been co-ordinating e= vents based on a UTC timestamp for decades and I think we should stick with= it.

Regarding the "version" field I again think it adds unnecessa= ry complexity. Pretty much everything that is needed within the Bitcoin URI= scheme can be encoded with suitable optional fields (as query params) maki= ng the whole structure forward compatible. Having a version field seems red= undant.

Finally, the URI signing mechanism. Apologies for the earlier misunders= tanding, I was reading from a limited description and it didn't make th= e purpose clear. I've since used https://bitcointalk.org/index.php= ?topic=3D58534.msg689190#msg689190 as my reference which is a lot clear= er. I think it's a good idea, and I'll definitely support it in my = MulitBit Merchant project, but it currently seems to need more work so I th= ink should be deferred into a dedicated BIP.

On 31 January 2012 08:35, Wladimir <laanwj@g= mail.com> wrote:

I also won= der whether the "send to private address" should be part of this = BIP, or a future one.

IMO (but your=C2=A0mileage=C2=A0may vary) this BIP should on= ly define the bare-bones URL scheme, AND provide room for future extensions= such as=C2=A0send-to-private-address, send-multiple-signers, and so on. Th= ese should be forwards-compatible (as Luke-Jr says) in the sense that older= clients can detect schemes they don't understand and give the user an = appropriate error message.

Maybe we need a send-type parameter to define the schem= e?

Good point on the version parameter. How are cl= ients supposed to handle this? Refuse to handle the request if their URL sc= heme parser version is older than in the URL? This should be in the BIP.=C2= =A0

Wladimir

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
Generally I prefer BIP 21= over BIP 20.

I'm neutral on the 'send' parameter - present in both BIPs - wh= ich I
don't understand. I think a practical usecase should be given in the BI= P.

Also, the 'version' parameter is unclear. What does it mean? Is an = oder
defined on versions (1.0b > 1.0)? Why is it an ";" parameter r= ather than
a normal "&" parameter?


On 01/30/2012 12:55 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> Matt Corallo posted a modification of BIP 20 in an earlier email and I=
> asked him if he wanted to become the champion of that BIP he submitted= .
>
> It is a modification of BIP 20 sans the alternative non-decimal number=
> stuff.
>
> http= s://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
>
> Right now, I will ask the GUI client implementations like MultiBit or<= br> > Bitcoin-Qt, not different codebases like BitCoinJ or libbitcoin if the= y
> support BIP 20 or BIP 21. Feel free to raise any objections.
>
> More weight will be given to GUIs with actual URI sche me
> implementations and it's good to have a general consensus.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------= -------------------------
> Try before you buy =3D See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developer= s
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC= 3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > htt= p://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitco= in-development



---------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developer= s
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
htt= p://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.= sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_________________________________________= ______
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--20cf303f69944d561304b7d00a69--