1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C643405
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:47:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354D6144
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:47:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAADC38A568B;
Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:47:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151022:justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org::wRokjFsWiEH0MEHq:aRj3F
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151022:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::o1nGdsemPf1dJmVF:kEjF
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:47:27 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201510220554.00367.luke@dashjr.org>
<201510222043.17582.luke@dashjr.org>
<56294E12.60301@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
In-Reply-To: <56294E12.60301@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201510222147.28878.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] Reusable payment codes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:47:42 -0000
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:58:58 PM Justus Ranvier wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this statement.
Well, I strongly disagree with adopting the BIP as it stands.
> Version 1 payment codes are designed to be deployable by wallet
> implementers today, without requiring them to wait on any network-level
> changes whatsoever, which includes IsStandard() redefinitions, or
> yet-to-be-invented-and-deployed filtering schemes.
No, those are not network-level changes. They are mere software changes that
can be deployed along with the rest of the proposal.
> As far as I know, multi-push OP_RETURN outputs are not standard
> transactions and so wallet users can not rely on transactions containing
> them to be relayed through the network, therefore any improvement to the
> protocol which requires that feature is not appropriate for version 1.
"Standard" means defined in a BIP. To date, there are no standard
transactions using OP_RETURN period. IsStandard is a node policy that should
have no influence on future BIPs.
> When additional capabilities are deployed in the network such that
> Bitcoin users can rely on their existence, that would be a great time to
> specify a version 2 payment code that uses those features and encourage
> users to upgrade (which should be a fairly smooth process since their
> actual keys don't need to change).
Such changes should not be made until there is a standard for them.
Luke
|
