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
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Return-Path: <keatonatron@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D2D6CC5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:43:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com
[209.85.214.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C01151C9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id fz5so94819406obc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:43:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=1cR0bOkd3JSJE1LpAsn8Vjxd9c+ACysHqeEt+MI9gJE=;
b=dLpaRb5RP95/wg+UNnUr/pcnSrsaJ60ndpnPn99MLQ0st31sjs70QCMCIj7x+kPyrv
6+I76bFWt6h3DTVJ33XYHlgnFQ8NB1vT4jlmCP8luBd8hu/OLdEofh49XeAexEqz2rK2
l6X2aXwlQO67c9Jq+Nm4TfPbaz/teokQTxa0uUs8ugJFnl0ck7hyfPD4Ex2kF17PQUWT
sxIRDZEWFDUA716ED8p+kDzqjJRXa+fxUG47e8oBEGpb93CL5NZFnAK2uojuaQJynY7/
QQlDIJUOOrYOk2lqBVTkhMBUEKoRx7WaZPooG+uJDmodx7TE940n13Gl+GyyNaNGURxA
OG/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=1cR0bOkd3JSJE1LpAsn8Vjxd9c+ACysHqeEt+MI9gJE=;
b=bz+0kEtFBG4gt22Wfqz0Er+32EMh+I+MjZ/TGKtkBt2rEAXuYBAAikHZ/hqDK39JKe
pYI7I9D3Qw3GPkLG1woZEKguTpCnS3iiDleUtiOXhXo1L5npmDofPVeiBemLDQBUV9wQ
nTZfeMIf5Jzgc8iGnCBVQO5dtksm3bb/gJ1PYim/Ty/xEynBnQvoG0+d4aIBX1agPUFP
ArwgWi2aidt6L7NIyQFq9telKMzNkqTwqwpR9Whz/teCQv3BAlKPQhg9+QXd6BE5tPtR
e3Kt/VtIgF4HV9uflkt5zOEVK0PxmaevITeF6bAw23QBTQ+hcKUtWp8dtb4g/tscPz4z
+wAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJX9fcSnAbttrXJXoIeWYyCf3gyFUVb4gbL5GeMzS8fdkME5nzaKyjqQDd6icriWiEKHC3yaDKFM7IviA==
X-Received: by 10.182.250.169 with SMTP id zd9mr3512550obc.59.1457646219088;
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:43:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:43:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CAH+Axy6WVtb8Eib0aqS4Pp=zpjnsrDBbWRMmmBrJOZ3rFQAXww@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c35c18d9f5052db8b59a
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:54:13 +0000
Subject: [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 <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, 10 Mar 2016 21:43:40 -0000
--089e0160c35c18d9f5052db8b59a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
--089e0160c35c18d9f5052db8b59a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi everyone,<div><br></div><div>Our BIP (officially propos=
ed 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.</div><div><br></div><div>We thought i=
t would be good to take this opportunity to add some optional fields to the=
BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new fields are: subtractable fee (give p=
ermission to the sender to use some of the requested amount towards the tra=
nsaction fee), fee per kb (the minimum fee required to be accepted as zeroc=
onf), and replace by fee (whether or not a transaction with the RBF flag wi=
ll be accepted with zeroconf). I know it doesn't make much sense for me=
rchants 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).<br><br>I see BIP75 as a ge=
neral 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 th=
e features we are proposing. Please take a look at the relevant section and=
let me know if anyone has any concerns: <a href=3D"https://github.com/tech=
guy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails">=
https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending=
_BIP70_PaymentDetails</a></div><div><br>The BIP70 extensions page in our fo=
rk has also been updated.<br><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div><br></div><di=
v>James=C2=A0</div></div>
--089e0160c35c18d9f5052db8b59a--
|
