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
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
|
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 13240BBD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:00:06 +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 AC799ED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:00:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>)
id 1ael1O-0006ae-4o for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:00:02 +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 16:00:02 +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 16:00:02 +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 16:00:17 +0100
Message-ID: <nc1at9$8gi$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAH+Axy6WVtb8Eib0aqS4Pp=zpjnsrDBbWRMmmBrJOZ3rFQAXww@mail.gmail.com>
<nbublk$d1f$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CABqynxK+bdh=6_RbE0c4KXwrTz=f47Ddn=C-iTSEMwZKBPUQdA@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: <CABqynxK+bdh=6_RbE0c4KXwrTz=f47Ddn=C-iTSEMwZKBPUQdA@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 16:35:34 +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 15:00:06 -0000
Replying to the "fee" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to
a different BIP number imho):
It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee
doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In
extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be
unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a
high enough rate...
Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover
should be declared.
Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted
from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which
understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.
The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can
send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee
amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it
would display just the exceeding amount.
On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate
> BIP. What do others think? I’d prefer to keep them together if the
> changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but thats
> not a strong preference.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Justin W. Newton
> Founder/CEO
> Netki, Inc.
>
> justin@netki.com <mailto:justin@netki.com>
> +1.818.261.4248 <tel:+1.818.261.4248>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
