path: root/47/97f9700047852045f56b8c5ffed9d184b40951

Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1RsAr1-0006Ud-1Y
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:22:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pw0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1RsAqv-0001RI-69
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:22:23 +0000
Received: by pbbb4 with SMTP id b4so46078pbb.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:22:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.73.100 with SMTP id k4mr49463664pbv.55.1328005331242; Tue,
	31 Jan 2012 02:22:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.8.11 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:22:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+2wrsNDxEQXjZmqWQtO5DHiTjc0SgU_+QCU_FybeFFY6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1327881329.49770.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<jg88ed$i85$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CA+s+GJDLoUG43hdLKYMwehBO9qqE=YCm7eJ2RN-TTTY_+OLp=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKm8k+2wrsNDxEQXjZmqWQtO5DHiTjc0SgU_+QCU_FybeFFY6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:22:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAvEPda7UGHDoz84OavSh5jdN8wOhGgrNUgPU_Wh66Xyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041705ad074e0604b7d05636
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
	(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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: 1RsAqv-0001RI-69
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:22:23 -0000

--f46d041705ad074e0604b7d05636
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

To ensure forward compatibility with optional fields, we need to define how
a client handles fields that it doesn't know about.

When should it display an error message, and when should it silently accept
and ignore the extraneous fields?

(For example, if something that restricts the validity, such as "expires"
is added later on, it is pretty important not to ignore it. Older clients
should refuse to comply.)

URL signing should indeed be addressed in a separate BIP and be an
extension mechanism, IMO.

"expires" and "message" could go into BIP 21 one as they're easy to
implement and don't need much discussion.

Wladimir

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk> wrote:

> 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 <laanwj@gmail.com> 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 <
>> andreas@schildbach.de> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>

--f46d041705ad074e0604b7d05636
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>To ensure forward compatibility with optional fields, we need to defin=
e how a client handles fields that it doesn&#39;t know about.</div><div><br=
></div><div>When should it display an error message, and when should it sil=
ently accept and ignore the extraneous fields?</div>
<div><br></div><div>(For example, if something=C2=A0that restricts the vali=
dity, such as=C2=A0&quot;expires&quot; is added later on, it is pretty impo=
rtant not to ignore it. Older clients should refuse to comply.)</div><div><=
br></div>
<div>URL signing should indeed be addressed in a separate BIP and be an ext=
ension mechanism, IMO.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;expires&quot; a=
nd &quot;message&quot; could go into BIP 21 one as they&#39;re easy to impl=
ement and don&#39;t need much discussion.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Wladimir=C2=A0</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Gary Rowe <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:g.rowe@froot.co.uk">g.rowe@froot.co.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think that the &quot;send to private address&quot; field will require mor=
e effort to implement than the simpler &quot;expires&quot; and &quot;messag=
e&quot; 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).<br>


<br>Personally, I feel that simple is best and while a block number represe=
nts Bitcoin&#39;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. <br>


<br>Regarding the &quot;version&quot; 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.<br>


<br>Finally, the URI signing mechanism. Apologies for the earlier misunders=
tanding, I was reading from a limited description and it didn&#39;t make th=
e purpose clear. I&#39;ve since used <a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/ind=
ex.php?topic=3D58534.msg689190#msg689190" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcoin=
talk.org/index.php?topic=3D58534.msg689190#msg689190</a> as my reference wh=
ich is a lot clearer. I think it&#39;s a good idea, and I&#39;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. <br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 31 January 2012 08:35, Wladimir <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laanwj@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">laanwj@g=
mail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div>I also won=
der whether the &quot;send to private address&quot; should be part of this =
BIP, or a future one.<div>


<br></div><div>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&#39;t understand and give the user an =
appropriate error message.</div>



<div><br></div><div>Maybe we need a send-type parameter to define the schem=
e?</div><div><br></div><div>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</div>


<span><font color=3D"#888888">
<div><br></div><div>Wladimir</div></font></span><div><div><div><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andreas@schildbach.de" target=3D"_blank=
">andreas@schildbach.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>



<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Generally I prefer BIP 21=
 over BIP 20.<br>
<br>
I&#39;m neutral on the &#39;send&#39; parameter - present in both BIPs - wh=
ich I<br>
don&#39;t understand. I think a practical usecase should be given in the BI=
P.<br>
<br>
Also, the &#39;version&#39; parameter is unclear. What does it mean? Is an =
oder<br>
defined on versions (1.0b &gt; 1.0)? Why is it an &quot;;&quot; parameter r=
ather than<br>
a normal &quot;&amp;&quot; parameter?<br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
On 01/30/2012 12:55 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:<br>
&gt; Matt Corallo posted a modification of BIP 20 in an earlier email and I=
<br>
&gt; asked him if he wanted to become the champion of that BIP he submitted=
.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It is a modification of BIP 20 sans the alternative non-decimal number=
<br>
&gt; stuff.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Right now, I will ask the GUI client implementations like MultiBit or<=
br>
&gt; Bitcoin-Qt, not different codebases like BitCoinJ or libbitcoin if the=
y<br>
&gt; support BIP 20 or BIP 21. Feel free to raise any objections.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; More weight will be given to GUIs with actual URI sche me<br>
&gt; implementations and it&#39;s good to have a general consensus.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div><div>&gt; -----------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------<br>
&gt; Try before you buy =3D See our experts in action!<br>
&gt; The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developer=
s<br>
&gt; is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC=
3,<br>
&gt; Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!<b=
r>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2" target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D=
"_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo=
pment" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitco=
in-development</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>---------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------<br>
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!<br>
<div>The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developer=
s<br>
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,<br=
>
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!<br>
</div><a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d" target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d</a><br>
<div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>-----------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------<br>
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!<br>
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers<br>
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,<br=
>
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d</a><br>_________________________________________=
______<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>-----------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------<br>
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!<br>
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers<br>
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,<br=
>
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d</a><br>_________________________________________=
______<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>

--f46d041705ad074e0604b7d05636--