Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C643405 for ; 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 ; 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 To: Justus Ranvier 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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