Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC1B5D1F for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09E96129 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aeki5-0007nA-7G for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:40:05 +0100 Received: from x4db4cadd.dyn.telefonica.de ([77.180.202.221]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:40:05 +0100 Received: from andreas by x4db4cadd.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:40:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:40:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x4db4cadd.dyn.telefonica.de X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_ALL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:35:23 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP75 - Out of Band Address Exchange X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:40:09 -0000 Yes, it makes sense. A BIP is something people refer to, either just by its number or by URL, and with multiple orthogonal "sub-BIPs" it's difficult to refer to. We have this problem with BIP32 already -- all HD wallets implement the derivation part of BIP32 but almost none do implement the hierarchy part (and use BIP43/44 instead). I tried to split up BIP32 into two BIPs later (without any content changes), but it was declined because of its final state. There is no harm in using a BIP only for a small thing, BIP numbers are infinite. On 03/11/2016 08:32 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote: > That's a valid point, and one we had thought of, which is why I wanted > to get everyone's opinion. I agree the proposed field extensions have > nothing to do with encryption, but does it make sense to propose a > completely separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the accepted > way to go, we can split it into two and make a separate proposal. > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 AM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with > other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs, > especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with > secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication. > > > On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been assigned > > number 75. Also, the title has been changed to "Out of Band Address > > Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption" to be more accurate. > > > > We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some > > optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new > fields are: > > subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the > > requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the minimum > > fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee > (whether or > > not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with zeroconf). I > > know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with > > zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse RBF > > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based on > > who you are transacting with). > > > > I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it > should be > > fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these > > fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please > take a > > look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any > concerns: > > > https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails > > > > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated. > > > > Thanks! > > > > James > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >