Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 014C8B94 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (mail-oi0-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296E414D for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:32:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id d205so93366828oia.0 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:32:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=iNwMo+knjwiVmkpuoWQqw6VSz/nxwNcrRj8wiBv9Cms=; b=Jn5OB7x1eLS83aVl6TK82EB5TP7nqHuldt7249fxMC1xW7cIK/z3ZNHMRSNUEfzi8g StyBTWAfqOpK4B5fd7dx4vDAFIp6Mp9yxq0yqM88Rhb5pncXzSG1JiYn+3fKxGhHsSP9 nFi+Mrdpge5k7ddCRAsyXC0qOMnxEpsVQKlgUr8ABgUGnOYYbAZEEgSWdfyHn6Y1yD+1 YHrYafj2bgtScEEWUDt8T07NKgMfYnHGsHENkD8NmLjPfdpTmfVlj5n5f4Sru+vQBR4w Mc70t/8e1iRmjcYmk6wXdqVDYSeWpuhdOKyrGMQNNTdlAPqQYFn/diCIcmkFyo1A6H2G s/8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=iNwMo+knjwiVmkpuoWQqw6VSz/nxwNcrRj8wiBv9Cms=; b=DWr4YV4IsZzUdK/1kr162DrsxUBne6wV9RkaV6VmazZEeElaM+oEjgijcStdboRVvM 58ng97a/Yq6na1fv+tBeDZtYr9Ng1dKxELKhZSOFT2tsTmYDtpAp2YZwW8ejINbROSwa xFa8gcS8r3xSgfHNugHykdgkYKujDWxrDCB2NEawMdaEx+Xm+sd3RoeS2WVvuUkQm8Jp JM/sGo8pzUpO/efqLUzdeLA0lTbQrUL7QKSYwO8cG9Nb+QQVuAsMQ7kS6nT2jxoxSdST ZODi+zgPb+Z6UHCvjH6J1nlNKSnNdNQmM5eo3UExJwBxea9lLBJPZQJ5uLFXMFanT5zY UdSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI4tJlGehVCFn8MoXO7zDLxyVTzkxVNqoHjHzfj+o103Kj2GCjj/WytU2rfZY6fJKi26+Q8lJdqCLJdRw== X-Received: by 10.202.193.10 with SMTP id r10mr6737283oif.126.1457724741607; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:32:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: James MacWhyte Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:32:12 +0000 Message-ID: To: Andreas Schildbach , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dc36e6765a6052dcafd5a 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: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:54:41 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:32:24 -0000 --001a113dc36e6765a6052dcafd5a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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> 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 > > 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 > --001a113dc36e6765a6052dcafd5a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 pr= opose a completely separate BIP for such a small thing? If that is the acce= pted 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> wr= ote:
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 Addre= ss
> Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption" to be more accurate.<= br> >
> We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some
> optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new fields ar= e:
> 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<= br> > 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 concern= s:
> https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extendin= g_BIP70_PaymentDetails
>
> The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> James
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a113dc36e6765a6052dcafd5a--