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
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
|
Return-Path: <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC1B5D1F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:40:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>)
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:40:05 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:40:11 +0100
Message-ID: <nc19ni$mnr$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAH+Axy6WVtb8Eib0aqS4Pp=zpjnsrDBbWRMmmBrJOZ3rFQAXww@mail.gmail.com>
<nbublk$d1f$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAH+Axy5usVrkKb5w65evJceeR5WG8giHxtZ7uyDwePyRxjbBig@mail.gmail.com>
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: <CAH+Axy5usVrkKb5w65evJceeR5WG8giHxtZ7uyDwePyRxjbBig@mail.gmail.com>
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 <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: 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
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> 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
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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
>
|
