Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rs9Bg-0006tL-8T for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:35:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.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-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rs9Bc-00044v-7E for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:35:36 +0000 Received: by pbbb4 with SMTP id b4so429445pbb.34 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:35:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.74.4 with SMTP id p4mr47930877pbv.123.1327998926330; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.8.11 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:35:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1327881329.49770.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:35:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Andreas Schildbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0413911d4419fd04b7ced83a 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: 1Rs9Bc-00044v-7E 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:35:36 -0000 --f46d0413911d4419fd04b7ced83a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 > --f46d0413911d4419fd04b7ced83a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I also wonder whether the "send to private address"= ; should be part of this BIP, or a future one.

IMO (but = your=C2=A0mileage=C2=A0may vary) this BIP should only define the bare-bones= URL scheme, AND provide room for future extensions such as=C2=A0send-to-pr= ivate-address, send-multiple-signers, and so on. These should be forwards-c= ompatible (as Luke-Jr says) in the sense that older clients can detect sche= mes they don't understand and give the user an appropriate error messag= e.

Maybe we need a send-type parameter to define the schem= e?

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

Wladimir

On Tu= e, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> wro= te:
Generally I prefer BIP 21 over BIP 20.

I'm neutral on the 'send' parameter - present in both BIPs - wh= ich I
don't understand. I think a practical usecase should be given in the BI= P.

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 r= ather 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.
>
> http= s://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
>
> Right now, I will ask the GUI client implementations like MultiBit or<= br> > Bitcoin-Qt, not different codebases like BitCoinJ or libbitcoin if the= y
> 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 =3D See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developer= s
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC= 3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > htt= p://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-d= evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitco= in-development



---------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Micros= oft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
htt= p://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
___________________________________= ____________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--f46d0413911d4419fd04b7ced83a--